Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 1 of 22

PageID #: 298

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE PORTLAND DIVISION

JAMES MURTAGH, M.D, Plaintiff, v. ST. MARYS REGIONAL HEALTH CENTER, a/k/a ST. MARYS HOSPITAL, ST. MARYS HEALTH SYSTEM and IRA SHAPIRO, M.D. and JOHN DOE 1 THROUGH 10 and JANE DOE 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants. Case No. 2:12-cv-00160 NT

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff James Murtagh, for his cause of action hereby alleges the following:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff James Murtagh, M.D. (Murtagh) is a physician who held at all time relevant to this civil action a license to practice medicine in the State of Maine. Currently, Murtagh resides in the State of California.

2. Defendant St. Marys Regional Health Center, d/b/a, St. Marys Hospital (the Hospital), upon information and belief, is a not-for-profit corporation qualified by registration to conduct business as a health care provider in and about Androscoggin County

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 2 of 22

PageID #: 299

in the State of Maine and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City of Lewiston, Maine.

3. Defendant St. Marys Health System (the Management Company), upon information and belief, is a not-for-profit corporation qualified by registration to conduct business in and about Androscoggin County in the State of Main and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the City of Lewiston, Maine. At all times relevant hereto, the Management Company directed or managed the business conducted by the Hospital.

4. Defendant Ira Shapiro, M.D. (Shapiro), upon information and belief, was the Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital and an officer of the Management Company.

JURISDICTION

5. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this civil action by 28 U.S.C. 1332 in that the amount in controversy in this civil action exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00).

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

6. VISTA Staffing Solutions, Inc. (VISTA), is a business corporation organized under the law of a state other than the State of Maine that is qualified by registration to conduct business in the State of Maine. VISTA provides temporary and permanent medical staffing placement services for hospital and medical practices.
2

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 3 of 22

PageID #: 300

7. VISTA assisted Murtagh in his placement as a pulmonary physician assigned to the pulmonary care and intensive care units of the Hospital, commencing April 22, 2010, under terms obligating the Hospital and/or the Management Company to compensate Murtagh through July 31, 2010, at the rate of Two Thousand Fifty and No/100 Dollars ($2,050.00) (U.S.) per day for any calendar week during which Murtagh would work not more than five calendar days other than on week-ends, and an additional One Thousand Twenty-Five and No/100 Dollars ($1,025.00) (U.S.) for each day on a week-end during which Murtagh made himself available on call during daylight hours, and an additional Two Hundred Fifty-Five and No/100 Dollars ($255.00) (U.S.) for day on a week-end during which Murtagh made himself available on call during evening hours. In addition, such terms obligated the Hospital and/or the Management Company to compensate Murtagh at the rate of Three Hundred Eighty-Five and No/100 Dollars ($385.00) (U.S.) per hour for each hour of work performed by Murtagh in excess of eight (8) hours during any calendar day whether or not such work was performed on a week-end.

8. The placement was and is pursuant to a contract between all three parties: VISTA, the Defendant Hospital and Murtagh. The Agreement is attached and labeled Exhibit 1.

9. The contract between the parties expressly provides that if the hospital reasonably finds that the performance of Murtagh is unacceptable that it may, after notice is given to VISTA demonstrating its reasonable findings, terminate Murtagh and avoid paying any additional compensation to Murtagh or VISTA.

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 4 of 22

PageID #: 301

10. While there is no definition reasonably finds provided for in the contract between the parties, the standard is most analogous to the standard used to judge all permanent doctors at the hospital as set forth in their by-laws since locum tenens doctors are replacements for full time staff physicians and not temporary as to the hospital, thus affording them the same due process standards.

11. While the post referenced in Paragraph 7 of this complaint was filled as a temporary position, locum tenes, Murtagh learned from key management personnel associated with the Hospital that they would urge the Hospital to offer him a permanent position. Murtagh worked overtime at the request of management of the Hospital and garnered positive and encouraging feedback from management personnel and staff concerning the quality of the patient care he delivered and his relationships among the Hospitals managers and staff members alike.

12.While employed at Defendant Hospital pursuant to his VISTA contract, Murtagh observed a series of unethical and possibly illegal activities taking place in the hospital including unnecessary medical procedures and services.

13. As was his duty under the law and as a physician, Murtagh reported these potential abuses to the appropriate agencies to investigate as appropriate.

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 5 of 22

PageID #: 302

14. Somehow, in a manner unknown to Murtagh, Defendant Shapiro became aware of the actions of Murtagh, which should have been anonymous, and he reacted by retaliating against Murtagh.

15. On May 11, 2010, a representative of VISTA assured Murtagh that reports from the Hospital confirmed that Murtaghs work was described as stellar. Nevertheless, without citing any deficiencies in Murtaghs performance or any criticism of his delivery of patient care, the Hospital summarily suspended, terminated, or revoked Murtaghs privileges to practice medicine at the Hospital on May 12, 2010, and informed VISTA that Murtaghs services locum tenes were no longer required.

16. The termination was not based on any findings, reasonable or unreasonable, and was not reported to VISTA in the form of reasonable findings based on the necessary investigation and hearings conducted beforehand in advance of the termination.

17. Upon being advised of his suspension, Murtagh asked the Hospital to provide him with details respecting the reason(s) (reasonable findings) for having taken such job action, asked that the Hospital provide such reason(s) in written form, and requested a meeting with Shapiro. Management of the Hospital informed Murtagh that each such request was denied, that Murtagh was required to leave the Hospitals grounds forthwith, and that Shapiro would meet with Murtagh in person the following day. Thereupon, Murtagh was escorted off of the Hospitals grounds in a humiliating fashion. To date, the hospital has continued to refuse to provide the required reasonable findings to Murtagh or VISTA.
5

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 6 of 22

PageID #: 303

18. Shapiro failed or refused to meet with Murtagh on May 13, 2010, in spite of the assurances given by management of the Hospital the previous day. When Shapiro failed or refused to meet with him, Murtagh requested that the Hospital furnish him with a copy of the Hospitals bylaws so he could follow the Hospitals procedures for challenging the decision to suspend, terminate, or revoke his privileges as these were the methodology by which reasonable findings were made pursuant to his contract. He also sent an electronic message to the Board of Directors of the Hospital, its Quality Control Officer, and patient care advocate requesting written notice spelling out the reason(s) (reasonable findings) for his summary suspension and the Hospitals failure or refusal to accord Murtagh due process pursuant to his contract by providing him with particulars about the reason(s) for his dismissal as well as an opportunity to be heard in opposition to any proposed suspension of his practice privileges with the Hospital. All addressees failed or refused to provide Murtagh with the requested details or due process opportunity.

19. The applicable by-laws (Exhibit 2) incorporated by reference to the tri-party contract, Exhibit 1, provide that physicians holding privileges must be afforded written notice of a decision to suspend, terminate, or revoke such privileges and a fair hearing through peer review of such decision. When management of a healthcare facility propose to take action to deny reappointment to a member of the medical staff, or reduce, revoke, or terminate privileges or medical staff status, or to suspend, terminate, or revoke privileges for a designated period, or to impose a summary suspension of privileges, or to take any action

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 7 of 22

PageID #: 304

that would be reportable to the National Practitioners Data Bank, the hospital must (a) to provide proper notice of such a hearing at least 30 days in advance and (b) state the professional review action proposed to be taken against the physician, the reasons for such proposed action, the physicians right to request a hearing on the proposed action, a summary of the physicians rights during such a hearing, and the deadline for the physician to make his or her request for a hearing (not less than 30 days after receiving such notice). The impartial hearing also mandates the right to present evidence and cross examine witnesses.

20. On May 13, 2010, Murtagh wrote to Shapiro to request an opportunity to meet with him to resolve any performance-based and/or patient care issues that may have served as the basis for suspending, terminating, or revoking Murtaghs privileges to practice medicine at the Hospital. Four days later, Shapiro replied to Murtagh, substantially, as follows: This is not a corrective action process. You are being let go on a strictly contractual basis, according to our agreement with VISTA. As a locum tenens physician, you hold temporary privileges at St. Marys. Our bylaws are quite clear that medical staff members holding temporary privileges are not entitled to due process upon termination of those privileges. I have reviewed these issues with counsel. I suggest, if you have additional questions, that you contact VISTA.

21. When Shapiro failed or refused to offer any explanation for the Hospitals

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 8 of 22

PageID #: 305

actions beyond the details recited in the written communication directed to Murtagh, as referenced in Paragraph 15 of this complaint, Murtagh was left with no choice but to leave Maine in an effort to secure employment elsewhere.

22. Upon information and belief, in contradiction of the explanation provided by Shapiro, as referenced in this complaint, Shapiro took it upon himself, without privilege at law or the express consent of Murtagh, and both in his capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital and/or the Management Company and in his personal capacity, to inform Murtaghs prospective employers and/or medical staffing agencies engaged to assist Murtagh in acquiring other temporary and permanent employment opportunities, that Murtagh had been dismissed from the Hospital for unsatisfactory performance despite the fact that no reasonable findings had ever been made or notice issued.

23. Specifically, Shapiro made the statements with the intent to harm Murtagh and prevent him from obtaining further employment because he believed him to be a potential whistleblower, willing to disclose unlawful activities of the hospital if discovered. The claims of unsatisfactory performance made in the absence of reasonable findings were and are a pretext for termination in advance retaliation for potential whistleblowing.

24. The statement(s) by Shapiro were false when uttered to Murtaghs prospective employers and/or medical staffing agencies and Shapiro either knew such statements were false or uttered the same with conscious, reckless, or heedless disregard for the truth or falsity of the same.

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 9 of 22

PageID #: 306

25. Healthcare providing facilities are required, as part of their due diligence in vetting the qualifications of physicians applying for privileges to practice medicine at their facilities, to contact the applicants previous employers to determine whether the circumstances of the termination of any prior employment relationship, whether locum tenes or permanent, to ascertain whether performance or patient care issues prompted such relationship to come to an end.

26. Murtagh claims that Shapiro conducted some due diligence and learned that Murtagh had justly acted as a whistleblower in a previous engagement at Emory University Medical School and feared that the illegal activities of St. Marys, if learned by Murtagh, would be disclosed by him. Thus, Shapiro preemptively terminated Murtagh before any reasonable findings could be made.

27. Due in substantial part to the false or unreasonable reasons given by Shapiro, both in his capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital and/or the Management Company and in his personal capacity, Murtagh was denied several positions for which he had applied and for which was well qualified by training and experience when Murtaghs prospective employers and/or staffing agencies either contacted Shapiro or were contacted by Shapiro and thereupon were offered the false statements respecting the end of the Murtaghs tenure with the Hospital generally described in this complaint.

28. Shapiros false statements concerning the termination of Murtaghs privileges

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 10 of 22

PageID #: 307

to practice medicine at the Hospital caused VISTA to discontinue its contractual relationship with Murtagh, to refuse to work with Murtagh in placing him with any of the companys other healthcare provider clients, and to discontinue all communication with Murtagh. This was and is the intent of St. Marys and Shapiro in order to punish Murtagh and prevent any whistle blowing by him in the future.

29. Shapiros actions are based on the illegal but prevalent belief that by defaming and terminating a whistle blower, that they will be dishonored and remain unemployed and that any illegal activities already uncovered will be ignored as incredible.

30. Upon information and belief, at least through November of 2011, Shapiro and/or the Hospital and/or the Management Company and/or John Doe 1 through 10 and/or Jane Doe 1 through 10 have continued to publish and re-publish such false statements, and have acquiesced or condoned in the publication and/or re-publication of such false statements by others, in the course of contacting or otherwise communicating with Murtaghs prospective employers and other placement agencies through which Murtagh has attempted to secure temporary and permanent placements with healthcare facilities as a pulmonary physician, thereby interfering with Murtaghs ability to earn a living through practicing medicine in other parts of the country.

COUNT ONE Action for Breach of Tri-Party Contract . 1-30. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this complaint.
10

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 11 of 22

PageID #: 308

31. Murtagh, the Defendants and VISTA entered into a tri-party contract or Placement Agreement providing that Murtagh would become and independent contractor to the Defendant hospital and provide services as a doctor. See Exhibit 1.

32. The Agreement controls the placement and relationship between the parties in conjunction with the individual placement agreement between VISTA and Murtagh which incorporates and merges into Exhibit 1.

33. The tri-party agreement appointing Mutagh as a locum tenens physician in this case was for a specific term, but could be terminated by the Defendant upon notice to VISTA backed by reasonable findings made by the Hospital as part of the due process hearing system provided by the hospital for its permanent doctors, including Plaintiff, who was standing in the shoes of a permanent physician by virtue of his locum tenens status.

34. The Defendant Hospital breached the contract(s) between the parties by failing to make any reasonable findings to support the termination of Murtagh before the end of the term, by failing to afford Plaintiff due process as required by its by-laws and by failing to give notice to VISTA so that VISTA could notify Murtagh.

35. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants breach of the contract(s), Murtagh was terminated summarily, without notice and without any reasonable basis or findings made pursuant to the due process protocol.

11

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 12 of 22

PageID #: 309

36. Had Murtagh been provided with due process or any opportunity to participate in the mandatory reasonable findings process, he would have shown that the claimed bases for termination was false, a pretext and also part of a fraudulent scheme to retaliate against him as a potential whistle blower.

37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach of contract, Murtagh has sustained economic damages [lost income for the balance of the stated term] and the termination of his placement contract with VISTA.

COUNT TWO Tortious Interference With Contracts or Prospective Economic Advantage

1-37. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint.

38. Murtagh enjoyed the existence of a contractual and positive economic relationship with VISTA, a physician placement firm that placed him with hospitals and medical facilities to perform medical services as a doctor as a substitute for permanent physicians.

39. Murtagh earned his livelihood through VISTA and other placement firms, a fact known to Defendants when it accepted Murtagh [hired him] as an independent contractor replacement for one of its own physicians through VISTA.

12

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 13 of 22

PageID #: 310

40. Defendants were aware of Murtaghs reliance on his relationship with VISTA to earn his living.

41. Defendants, with the illegal and unlawful motive of eliminating a potential whistle blower and to punish Murtagh by crippling his opportunities to obtain work at hospitals through VISTA, intentionally and with the specific intent to cause VISTA to discontinue its relationship with Murtagh, terminated Murtagh without any reasonable findings as required by the contract and for reasons that are false and a pretext for its intention to cripple Murtagh financially by black balling him with placement firms such as VISTA.

42. In particular, the utterances attributed to Shapiro in this complaint, uttered both in his personal capacity and in his representative capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital and an officer of the Management Company, as directed to VISTA and to Murtaghs other prospective employers and staffing agencies, have tortiously interfered with Murtaghs contracts or prospective economic advantage. Specifically, the assertion Murtaghs performance was unsatisfactory, made in the absence of any reasonable findings, and the claim that Murtaghs privileges were suspended, terminated, or revoked on account of such allegedly unsatisfactory performance in the absence of the required notices, reasonable findings and due process was made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of whether the same was true and for the purpose of inducing Murtaghs employers, prospective employers, and placement agencies to rely on the same. As to VISTA, the false claims resulted in the unjust termination of the relationship and the loss of other placements at other facilities through VISTA.

13

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 14 of 22

PageID #: 311

43. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and statements of Defendants agents [Shapiro] referenced in in this complaint, Murtagh lost prospective economic advantages and opportunities, suffered damages to his professional reputation, lost salary and other perquisites of employment, suffered the termination of contracts of employment or engagement of his services as a pulmonary physician, was and is unable to secure consideration for various opportunities for temporary and permanent placement with healthcare providers seeking to add the services of a pulmonary physician with Murtaghs credentials to their staffs, and sustained other losses and damages of both an economic and non-economic character in an amount exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.), in the aggregate, for which the Hospital, the Management Company, and Shapiro are liable, jointly and severally, to Murtagh.

44. To the extent John Doe 1 through 10 and/or Jane Doe 1 through 10, or any combination of them or any of them, have engaged conduct similar to the conduct such person(s) and each principal for whom such person(s) may have been acting when engaging in such conduct is liable, jointly and severally, to Murtagh so as to compensate him fully and fairly for the value of his loss of contracts and lost prospective economic advantages and opportunities, damages to his professional reputation, lost salary and other perquisites of employment, and all other losses and damages of both an economic and noneconomic character that Murtagh has sustained as a proximate result of the conduct and statements attributed to John Doe 1 through 10 and Jane Doe 1 through 10 herein, and the aggregate amount of such damages exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.) in the aggregate.
14

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 15 of 22

PageID #: 312

COUNT THREE Defamation and False Light 1-44. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 26 of this complaint.

45. The statements attributed to Shapiro in this complaint, uttered both in his personal capacity and in his representative capacity as Medical Director of the Hospital and an officer of the Management Company, as directed to Murtaghs prospective employers and staffing agencies, were false, misleading, and defamatory when uttered and were shared by Shapiro with persons outside of the scope of any claimed privilege.

46. In asserting, claiming, or suggesting that Murtaghs privileges to practice medicine at the Hospital were suspended, terminated, or revoked for unsatisfactory performance in discharging duties as a licensed medical professional entrusted with patient care while holding privileges to practice medicine at the Hospital, Shapiro, both in his personal capacity and in his representative capacity as Chief Medical Officer of the Hospital and an officer of the Management Company, defamed Murtagh in injury to his professional reputation, subjected Murtagh to ridicule and scorn in the medical profession and among individuals having influence over recruiting and hiring practices pertaining to the placement of physicians in temporary and permanent staff positions with healthcare providers, and cast Murtagh in false light, especially when directing such remarks to Murtaghs prospective employers and staffing agencies in such fashion as to injure

15

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 16 of 22

PageID #: 313

Murtaghs professional reputation, adversely affect Murtaghs employment prospects, and otherwise compromise Murtaghs interests in continuing his career in the practice of medicine.

47. Not only are the statements made false and defamatory as they hold Murtagh to ridicule and scorn in his profession, but they were made in violation of the contract(s) between the parties in the absence of notice to VISTA, in the absence of any reasonable findings or de process and not for any legitimate purpose to potential employers. Rather, the statements were made by Defendant and its agents to black ball Murtagh, cripple him economically by preventing him from obtaining any placements in any medical system as punishment for past or potential disclosures of illegal activities by his employers, including Defendant.

48. Specifically, by defaming Murtagh and giving him no opportunity to contest the claimed rationale for termination, Defendants were attempting to discredit Murtagh so that any illegal activity he witnessed, if reported, would be similarly discredited by the recipient.

49. Defendants statements were thus made for illegal reasons or motives, not protected by any privilege and intentionally designed to inflict maximum damage to Murtaghs reputation.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct and statements referenced in

16

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 17 of 22

PageID #: 314

in this complaint, Murtagh lost prospective economic advantages and opportunities, suffered damages to his professional reputation, and sustained other economic and noneconomic losses and damages, including emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation in an amount exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.), in the aggregate, for which the Hospital, the Management Company, and Shapiro are liable, jointly and severally, to Murtagh so as to compensate him fully and fairly for all such losses and damages.

51. To the extent John Doe 1 through 10 and/or Jane Doe 1 through 10, or any combination of them or any of them, have engaged conduct similar to the conduct, such person(s) and each principal for whom such person(s) may have been acting when engaging in such conduct is liable, jointly and severally, to Murtagh so as to compensate him fully and fairly for the value of his lost prospective economic advantages and opportunities, damages he has suffered to his professional reputation, and all other losses and damages of both an economic and non-economic character that Murtagh has sustained as a proximate result of the conduct and statements attributed to John Doe 1 through 10 and Jane Doe 1 through 10 herein. The aggregate amount of such damages exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.) in the aggregate. COUNT FOUR

Enforcement of Rights of Third Party Beneficiary of VISTA Contract 1-51. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of this complaint.
17

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 18 of 22

PageID #: 315

52. Murtagh is an intended beneficiary of all the express promises made by the Hospital and the Management Company to VISTA in Exhibit 1, including notice, the requirement of reasonable findings and due process including the protections of the sort referenced this complaint. 53. The promises in Exhibit 1 are made with the intent to benefit Murtagh as the placed independent contractor, especially the requirements of notice and reasonable findings or due process.

54. In adopting Exhibit 1, both VISTA and the Defendants bound themselves to the terms of the agreement including Murtaghs right to enforce those terms intended to apply to him and the other parties for his benefit.

55. Defendants breached the contract (Exhibit 1) as applied to Murtagh as an intended third party beneficiary, by failing or refusing to honor Murtaghs due process rights, make reasonable findings and otherwise denying Murtagh sufficient notice of the reason(s) for suspending, terminating, or revoking his clinical privileges at the Hospital and Murtaghs opportunity to be heard, to confront witnesses against him, to present evidence in his own behalf, and to advocate his position in response to managements proposed action against him, the Hospital and the Management Company compromised Murtaghs reasonable expectations that he would derive benefits and protections from the benefits and intentions of the parties, in exchange for his agreement to reserve time for the exclusive benefit of the Hospital from April 12, 2010, through July 31, 2010, and

18

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 19 of 22

PageID #: 316

thereby cause him to forego opportunities to engage in or secure other remunerative employment in his specialty during such period of time.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the breach, Murtagh suffered damages in an amount exceeding Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.) in the aggregate, for which the Hospital and the Management Company are liable, jointly and severally. COUNT FIVE Violation of Title 26, Section 630 1-56. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of this complaint.

57. Although an independent contractor, Murtagh is also an employee as to the Defendant Hospital within the meaning of Title 26, Section 630.

58. Murtagh demanded a detailed written statement of the reasons for his termination from the Defendants in accordance with Title 26, Section 630.

59. The Defendants failed and refused to provide a detailed, accurate and truthful statement in accordance with the statute within the requisite 15 days of the request being made. Rather, the details were provided to a third party, VISTA, in violation of Title 26 Section 630.

19

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 20 of 22

PageID #: 317

60. The Defendants violation of Title 26 Section 630 entitles Murtagh to statutory damages and his actual attorneys fees in bringing and prosecuting this action.

COUNT SIX Retaliation against Whistleblower & Wrongful Discharge 1-60. Murtagh hereby incorporates by reference as if fully rewritten herein each and every allegation set forth or reference in Paragraphs 1 through 40 of this complaint.

61. The Public Policy of the State of Maine and specifically, 26 M.R.S. Section 831 et seq., encourages employees and others who learn of illegal activity [possible violation of State or Federal Law] during the course of their employment to report, inform or disclose it to the appropriate agencies to investigate for the benefit of the United States or the State of Maine.

62. The law of the State of Maine also prevents an employer from retaliating against a whistleblower who reports possible illegal activities in good faith. Specifically, an employee or contractor may not be terminated or dismissed for reporting possible illegal activity in good faith.

63. Murtagh reported possible illegal or fraudulent activity taking place at St. Marys in good faith to state and federal agencies and to Defendants. Specifically, the conduct involved patient care and was a condition or practice related to Pulmonary Medicine and

20

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 21 of 22

PageID #: 318

Critical Care Medicine that placed the health and safety of patients at risk. The disclosures were made first to the Hospitals Risk Management Offices to provide an opportunity to take corrective action and then to VISTA and other agencies.

64. In violation of Maine law, the Defendants retaliated against Murtagh by terminating his employment/assignment through VISTA, falsely claiming that his performance as a doctor was unsatisfactory and attempting to black ball him in his efforts to obtain other employment and assignments.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants illegal retaliation against him, Murtagh has suffered and continues to suffer both economic and non-economic damages in the form of lost wages and earnings, humiliation, emotional distress and embarrassment and damage to his professional reputation.

WHEREFORE, having stated his causes of action, Murtagh hereby demands that this court enter judgment in his favor and against defendants, jointly and severally, and requiring them, and each of them, to remit to Murtagh, according to proof, such amount(s) in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($75,000.00) (U.S.) as shall fully and fairly compensate Murtagh for all damages and losses suffered as a proximate result of the wrongful acts and omissions of defendants, as alleged herein, plus his actual attorneys fees, interest and costs. /s/ Joseph C Bird JURY DEMAND

21

Case 2:12-cv-00160-NT Document 22 Filed 10/30/12 Page 22 of 22

PageID #: 319

Murtagh restates his original demand for a jury trial.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/Joseph C Bird

22