282 D MSJ - Opp - SS

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 282 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 1 of 115
1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
2 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90013
3 Phone: (213) 992-3299
Fax: (213) 596-0487
4 email: elee@LOEL.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff

DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 FRESNO DIVISION
11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG
12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT

OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO
13 v. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
14 COUNTY OF KERN, et al., [Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)]
15 Defendants. Date: January 12, 2009

Time: 10:00
16 Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger
Courtroom: 3
17
Complaint Filed: January 6, 2007
18 Trial Date: March 24, 2009
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., hereby submits the following statement of disputed and
27
undisputed material facts in support of his Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
28
Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

∆’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1
1
Δ’s MATERIAL FACTS Δ’S Π’S RESPONSE
2 (“DMF”) SOURCE
3 LEGAL RELATIONSHIP
4 BETWEEN KERN
MEDICAL CENTER AND
5 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
6 1. First Employment DFJ00025 Undisputed.
Contract between Kern -00046
7 Medical Center (hereinafter
referred to as KMC) and
8 David F. Jadwin, D.O.
(hereinafter referred to as
9 Jadwin) was entered into on
October 24, 2000.
10
a) Article 1, ¶2 incorporates DFJ00043 Undisputed.
11 attached Exhibit A as a part -46
of the agreement
12
b) Article 5, ¶20 states, in Undisputed that the document says what it says.
13 part, “The parties recognize
that each is possessed of
14 legal knowledge and skill,
and that this Agreement is
15 fully understood by the
parties, and is the result of
16 bargaining between the
parties.”
17
c) Article 5, ¶22 states, in Disputed only as to the word “Agreement”. Article 5 ¶ 22
18 part, “This Agreement, actually uses the word “document”, “This document,
including all attachments including all [….]”.Undisputed that the document says
19 hereto, contains the entire what it says.
agreement between the
20 parties relating to the
services, rights, obligations
21 and covenants contained
herein and assumed by the
22 parties respectively.”
23 2. Employment Verification DFJ00358 Undisputed.
letter gives original date of
24 hire as December 3, 2000.
25 3. Jadwin received the 0000202- See evidentiary objections.
Medical Staff Bylaws. 203
26
4. Medical Staff Bylaws. 0000272- Undisputed.
27 358
28

1 5. Responsibilities and duties DFJ00046 See evidentiary objections.

of the pathology dept. chair
2 are set out in the KMC Disputed: Sections 6. through 6.4-3 of the Bylaws do
Medical Staff Bylaws, NOT contain any such provisions.
3 sections 6. through 6.4-3.
4 6. Second Employment 0001479- Undisputed.

Contract between KMC and 1499
5 Jadwin was effective October
5, 2002.
6
a) Exhibit A to the Second Undisputed.
7 Employment Contract: Job
Description, David F.
8 Jadwin, M.D., Pathology
Chairman.
9
i) First paragraph, 3rd line Disputed in that Article II.1.A. of the Second
10 reads “This is a full-time Employment Contract provides that Plaintiff was required
position requiring 48 hours to work “no less than forty [40] hours per week”. (Bates
11 of service, on average, per 0001480). Otherwise, undisputed that the document says
week.” what it says.
12
ii) Second page, paragraph 6 Disputed in that Article II.1.A. of the Second
13 states “A standard workweek Employment Contract provides that Plaintiff was required
will be 48 hours per week. to work “no less than forty [40] hours per week”. (Bates
14 Actual hours may vary week- 0001480). Otherwise, undisputed that the document says
to-week according to specific what it says.
15 assignments; however, the
objective is to achieve 2112
16 worked hours during a
twelve-month period.”
17
b) Section V, ¶10 states Undisputed that the document says what it says.
18 “Core physician shall be
employed by the County of
19 Kern pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement and the
20 medical staff bylaws of
KMC. Core physician
21 acknowledges that he or she
will not be deemed a
22 classified employee, or have
any rights or protections
23 under the County’s Civil
Service Ordinance, rules or
24 regulations.”
25
FMLA/CFRA
26 RETALIATION
27
28

1 7. Letter to Peter Bryan DFJ00723 See evidentiary objections.

2 Bryan) from Jadwin, dated Disputed: Plaintiff states on DFJ000723 that “This
1/9/06, requesting harassment had led me develop depression, anxiety and
3 administrative leave with pay insomnia.
until hostile environment is Although I enjoy much of my work at KMC, it is not
4 corrected. He demanded possible for me to continue to
action on 1) sending work under this form of harassment.” Under FEHA, this
5 transfusion Product Chart letter placed Defendants on notice that Plaintiff was
Copies (hereinafter referred suffering a recurrence of his chronic depression and that
6 to as PCCs) to the blood the leave he was requesting was a reasonable
bank; 2) KMC’s alleged lack accommodation of his disability. See evidentiary
7 of compliance with their objections. Otherwise, undisputed that the document says
weekly oncology conferences what it says.
8 by reporting themselves
(KMC) to the American
9 College of Surgeons
10 ACS); 3) reviewing time
limits on pathology
11 presentations; and 4)
implementing protocol of
12 collection of Fine Needle
Aspiration (hereinafter
13 referred to as FNA)
specimens.
14
7A. Dutt recalled Jadwin’s Dutt See evidentiary objections.
15 threat of taking a leave of Depo.,
absence until the medical 8/20/08, Disputed: Jadwin never made such a threat. [Decl. of
16 staff and the administration pgs. 52:5- David Jadwin in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
apologized to him. 53: 18 Summary Judgment (“Jadwin Opp. Decl.”), para. 3].
17
8. Jadwin conducted a DFJ02422 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to proving disability
18 vigorous job search in the -2459 under FEHA vis-à-vis ADA.
first six months of 2006. He
19 was actively looking for
another job as there are
20 inquiries into at least six
other full-time positions.
21
a) “You know, I wish I could Jadwin See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to proving disability
22 go back because I enjoyed Depo., under FEHA vis-à-vis ADA.
that job. I mentioned 10/21/08,
23 multiple times during my pg.
recruitment and elsewhere 1087:9-17
24 that that was the last position
that I wanted to take, that I
25 saw myself retiring out of
that position and not moving.
26 And I was very disappointed
when-when things-when
27 people that were in a position
to do the right thing didn’t do
28 the right thing.”

1 9. Sandi Chester effectively Chester See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

refutes any argument that Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
2 Jadwin’s letter to Peter 8/28/08, evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
Bryan of January 9, 2006 pgs. anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
3 was notice to KMC that 135:12-
Jadwin needed medical 137: 6 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to prove Plaintiff
4 leave or that, by failed to give reasonable notice on 3/16/06 of his need for
implication, Jadwin was Pg. extension of medical leave prior to being placed on
5 absolved of the 136:17-18 Forced FT Leave by Bryan on 4/28/06. Chester later
responsibility to notify HR admitted that Plaintiff’s email to Bryan of 3/16/06
6 that he was taking a leave constituted reasonable notice of his need for extension of
of absence. As Sandi medical leave.
7 Chester said “I mean, [Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pg. 65:2-13 and 74: 12-22]
anybody can write a
8 letter.”
9 10. Certification of Health DFJ00726 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Care Provider dated 1/13/06
10 for Jadwin. Includes the
duration of the medical
11 condition (2-3 months) and
the expected date to return to
12 work (3/16/06). It gives the
date the medical condition
13 commenced as 12/16/05.
14 11. Jadwin did not Chester See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
communicate with Human Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
15 Resources (hereinafter 8/28/08,
referred to as HR) at all, HR pgs. Disputed: Plaintiff obtained permission in January 2006
16 discovered that Jadwin ------ 75:19- from Bryan before commencing his medical leave. Bryan
had unilaterally assigned 76:10 promised to contact HR and send Plaintiff the necessary
17 himself to 1 to 2 workdays leave forms but was late in doing so. Plaintiff submitted
per week but, per policy, an the form and medical certification promptly after being
18 employee must use vacation, provided the forms and appropriate instructions from HR.
sick time, or leave of absence [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 4].
19 when not working full-time.
It was HR that brought Defendant County waived any such policy by allowing
20 Jadwin into compliance with Dr. Naderi and Dr. Dutt to take leave for known
County policy by putting him FMLA/CFRA qualifying purposes without requiring them
21 on leave of absence. to contact HR, submit a request for family leave
supported by a doctor's certificate; HR did not designate
22 either of their leaves as family leave. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
Exh. 56 (PMK Dutt Depo at 232:6-13, 237:1-9); Exh. 41
23 (Naderi Depo. at 38:6-39:25, 43:2-10, 51:21-25); Exh. 29
(McBride Depo. at 98:15-22) (Naderi's son's accident was
24 common knowledge at KMC)]. The fact that Defendants
apply it strictly against Plaintiff is further evidence of
25 retaliatory animus.
26
27
28

1 12. KMC had to designate Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Jadwin’s medical leave Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
2 retroactively because Jadwin 8/14/08,
was late in giving appropriate pgs. Disputed: Plaintiff’s timecards show that he took vacation
3 requests. 195:9- from 12/16/05 to 1/2/06. Plaintiff obtained permission in
196: 14 January 2006 from Bryan before commencing his medical
4 leave. Bryan promised to contact HR and send Plaintiff
the necessary leave forms but was late in doing so.
5 Plaintiff submitted the form and medical certification
promptly after being provided the forms and appropriate
6 instructions from HR. On 1/13/06, Plaintiff’s therapist,
Dr. Riskin, certified that Plaintiff's need for reduced work
7 schedule began on 12/16/05. Accordingly, KMC
retroactively deducted Jadwin's vacation days from his
8 FMLA/CFRA balance even though he worked full time
for approximately three weeks after returning from
9 vacation. [Lee Decl., Exh. 14 (Bryan Memo to Jadwin of
4/28/06 at DFJ01155); [Declaration of Paul Riskin
10 (“Riskin Decl.”), Exh. 1 (Certification of 1/13/06 at
DFJ1810)].
11 [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 4].
13. Jadwin’s submission of Chester See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
12 his healthcare provider’s Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
certification was not timely 8/28/08,
13 and was only provided upon pgs. Disputed: Plaintiff obtained permission in January 2006
prompting from HR. 113:23- from Bryan before commencing his medical leave. Bryan
14 114: 12 promised to contact HR and send Plaintiff the necessary
leave forms but was late in doing so. Plaintiff submitted
15 the form and medical certification promptly after being
provided the forms and appropriate instructions from HR.
16 [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para.4].
14. Certification of Health DFJ0l150 Disputed in that the form also states that Plaintiff can
17 Care Provider, dated 4/26/06, work “part-time, now”, and is able to “work for 1-2 days
stating that Jadwin’s medical per week”; and Defendant did not engage in interactive
18 condition goes back to consultation to clarify any confusion over the Riskin’s
10/30/03. The Certification certification.
19 states that Jadwin requires
“part-time or less to avoid
20 worsening of his serious
medical condition.”
21
15. Jadwin’s Request for DFJ00746 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
22 Leave of Absence Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
23 LOA), dated 3/2/06, notes Otherwise undisputed that the document says what it says.
that the LOA started on
24 12/16/05.
25
26
27
28

1 16. KMC’s responsive DFJ00747 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

document to the LOA -748 Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
2 request, dated 3/2/06,
indicating that the leave ends
3 on 3/15/06 and stating “ ..
have the right to be reinstated
4 to the same or an equivalent
job with the same pay,
5 benefits and terms and
conditions of employment.”
6
17. E-mails dated 3/16/06. DFJ00752 Undisputed.
7 One to Peter Bryan from -753
Jadwin telling him that he
8 (Jadwin) will take Bryan’s
suggestion to take 2-3
9 months additional leave;
the other to Dr. Kercher
10 from Jadwin telling him
that he (Jadwin) is having
11 surgery and will need 2-3
months of additional leave
12 for the surgery and
requesting apologies from
13 Dr. Ragland (President-
elect), Dr. Abraham and
14 Dr. Taylor and an
investigation into Dr. Roy.
15
18. Notice from Human DFJ00796 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to prove Plaintiff
16 Resources to Jadwin, dated failed to give reasonable notice on 3/16/06 of his need for
4/20/06, that his leave of extension of medical leave prior to being placed on
17 absence expired on 3/15/06. Forced FT Leave by Bryan on 4/28/06. This is also See
evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’
18 liability under any other of Plaintiff’s counts.
19 Chester admitted in Depo. that Plaintiff’s email to Bryan

of 3/16/06 constituted reasonable notice of his need for
20 extension of medical leave.
[Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pg. 65:2-13 and 74: 12-22]
21
Otherwise, undisputed that the document says what it
22 says.
23 19. Jadwin’s request for DFJ01158 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to prove Plaintiff
Leave of Absence Extension, failed to give reasonable notice on 3/16/06 of his need for
24 dated 4/26/06, has a starting extension of medical leave prior to being placed on
date of 3/15/06 and an Forced FT Leave by Bryan on 4/28/06.
25 ending date of 9/16/06.
Chester admitted in Depo. that Plaintiff’s email to Bryan
26 of 3/16/06 constituted reasonable notice of his need for
extension of medical leave.
27 [Smith Depo., 8/19/08, pg. 65:2-13 and 74: 12-22]
28 Otherwise, undisputed that the document says what it
says.

1 20. Memo from Bryan to DFJ0l121 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Jadwin, dated 4/28/06,
2 notifying him that his leave
would be up on 6/16/06 and
3 he either returns fulltime or
resigns. Also, it notes that
4 Jadwin was provided a
medical leave history, along
5 with the calculations and
policies about his medical
6 leave.
7 21. Bryan noted that he gave Bryan See evidentiary objections.

the option to Jadwin whether Depo.,
8 to go on full-time leave, 8/14/08, Disputed: Plaintiff has testified multiple times that, after
although full-time leave was pgs. 250: he requested an extension of his medically-required part-
9 preferable to Bryan. Bryan 15- 251:6, time medical leave in April 2006 [Jadwin Decl. (Doc.
asserts that it was Jadwin’s Exhibit 265), Exh. 6 (Jadwin’s Request for Leave Extension of
10 decision to go on fulltime 303 4/26/06 at DFJ00157), Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s Email to Bryan,
leave and that Jadwin never Chester, & Dutt of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752)], Defendant
11 communicated with Bryan Bryan refused and forced him onto full-time medical
any contrary intent. leave on April 28, 2006, so as to exhaust his medical
12 leave as soon as possible. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan
Depo at 249:24-250:19; Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-
13 13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo. at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-
985:4).]. Plaintiff’s testimony is unrefuted: Defendant
14 Bryan admitted in Depo. that it was his idea that day to
have Plaintiff convert his part-time leave to full-time,
15 based upon a perception that Plaintiff’s part-time leave
was creating “issues” within the Pathology department
16 (not a concern that part-time work might worsen
Plaintiff’s condition). [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan
17 Depo at 249:24-250:19; Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-
13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo. at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-
18 985:4).].
19 It should be noted that the “issues” within the Pathology

department to which Bryan referred are clearly pretext.
20 Less than 2 weeks before Bryan interfered with Plaintiff’s
leave, he wrote to him saying: “Yes, the Department of
21 Pathology continues to function well, as it has for many
years, and, yes, you have made many positive changes to
22 the department” [Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 12 (Bryan
memo to Jadwin of 4/17/06 at DFJ795); Bryan Depo at
23 332:12-22; Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14 (Bryan’s Memo
to Jadwin of 4/28/06 at DFJ1152)]. Later, Bryan testified
24 that, as of April 28, 2006, “actual functioning of the
department of [pathology] actually was fairly good”. [Lee
25 Opp. Decl., Exh. 3 (Bryan Depo at 332:12-22).].
26
27
28

1 22. Memo from Bryan to Bryan See evidentiary Objections

Jadwin dated 4/28/06, Depo.,
2 summarizing a meeting held 8114/08, Disputed: Plaintiff has testified multiple times that, after
with Bryan, Karen Barnes, pgs. he requested an extension of his medically-required part-
3 Steve O’Connor, and Jadwin. 240:9- time medical leave in April 2006 [Jadwin Decl. (Doc.
The meeting was held to 244: 2, 265), Exh. 6 (Jadwin’s Request for Leave Extension of
4 “insure that [Jadwin] had all Exhibit 4/26/06 at DFJ00157), Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s Email to Bryan,
information available 303 pg Chester, & Dutt of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752)], Defendant
5 concerning his status and 243:22-25 Bryan refused and forced him onto full-time medical
what was possible and not pg.244:1- leave on April 28, 2006, so as to exhaust his medical
6 possible according to County 2 leave as soon as possible. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan
policies for leaves of Depo at 249:24-250:19; Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-
7 absence.” It was not a 13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo. at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-
disciplinary meeting. 985:4).]. Plaintiff’s testimony is unrefuted: Defendant
8 Bryan admitted in Depo. that it was his idea that day to
have Plaintiff convert his part-time leave to full-time,
9 based upon a perception that Plaintiff’s part-time leave
was creating “issues” within the Pathology department
10 (not a concern that part-time work might worsen
Plaintiff’s condition). [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan
11 Depo at 249:24-250:19; Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-
13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo. at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-
12 985:4).].
13 Disputed that it was not a disciplinary meeting. [Lee Opp.

Decl., Exh. 57 (O’Connor Depo. at 68:4-11). Meetings
14 that Defendant Bryan ordered him to attend were typically
those involving employee discipline. [Id. at 73:23-74:11].
15 O’Connor also testified that his role at the meeting did not
include offering any input, and that he did not do so.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 23. A letter to Bryan from Bryan See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin, dated May 31, 2006, Depo.,
2 where Jadwin requests more 8/14/08, Undisputed that Plaintiff was requesting more time to
time to make the decision by pgs. make decision by June 16th whether to return full-time or
3 June 16th of whether to 248:16249 resign.
return full-time or resign. : 9 Exhibit
4 Bryan did not have the 311 Disputed that Plaintiff “did not do that”. It is true Bryan
authority to make an had told Plaintiff to make a decision to return full-time by
5 exception to County policy 6/16/06. Plaintiff’s request for more time to decide was
by extending leave beyond sent on 5/31/06. All Bryan had to do was say yes or no.
6 the maximum period granted He did neither. Instead, on 6/14/06, 2 days before the
for leave. Jadwin wasn’t deadline, Bryan pre-empted Plaintiff by informing him he
7 being asked to return full- was going to “enact the provisions [of REMOVAL], and
time on June 16th, he just rescind your appointment as chairman…This decision is
8 had to give his decision to effective 6/17/07. [Lee Decl. (Bryan memo to Jadwin of
return full-time by June 16th. 6/14/06 at DFJ01181].
9 He did not do that.
Disputed: Bryan did not lack authority to extend leave
10 beyond June 16, 2006. Kern County Civil Service
Commission rule 1201.20 provided that Plaintiff was
11 permitted to have medical or recuperative leave of up to 6
months CUMULATIVELY. [Lee Decl., Exh. 18 (CSC
12 Rules, Rule 1201.20 on Bates 0001501)]. June 16 is
exactly 6 calendar months after Plaintiff’s leave allegedly
13 began (December 16, 2005). Since Plaintiff had been on
part-time leave from 12/16/05 to 4/28/06, he had not used
14 up 6 months of cumulative leave by 6/16/06. On June 29,
2006, Plaintiff’s counsel informed County Counsel
15 Barnes of this error. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 16 (Lee Letter
to Barnes of 6/29/06 at sec. III)]. Defendant County
16 responded by demoting Plaintiff on July 10, 2006
anyway.
17
24. Letter from Peter Bryan DFJ01141 Disputed that Plaintiff ever asked for 90-days Personal
18 to Jadwin, dated 6/14/06, Necessity Leave. He never did; Bryan forced him onto
granting him Personal personal leave. Plaintiff’s leave extension request of
19 Necessity Leave of 90 days, March 16, 2006 asked for extension of Plaintiff’s
pursuant to Rule 1202.2, but protected medical leave, not personal leave. [Jadwin Decl.
20 only for his employment with (Doc. 265), Exh. 6 (Jadwin’s Request for Leave
KMC, not for his position as Extension of 4/26/06 at DFJ00157); Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s
21 pathology department chair. Email to Bryan, Chester, & Dutt of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752);
Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 15 (Chester Depo at
22 120:1-16)]. Meanwhile, Defendants’ own Separate
Statement (Doc. 259) admits that Plaintiff’s letter to
23 Bryan of May 31, 2006 was requesting more time to
decide whether he would be returning full-time or
24 resigning. It was not requesting more leave past
September 16, 2006. [Defendants’ Separate Statement
25 (Doc. 259), DMF 23]. The notion that Bryan “granted”
Plaintiff personal leave is pretext.
26
27
28

1 25. Bryan artfully explained Bryan See evidentiary objections.

why the Chair of the Depo.,
2 Department of Pathology 8/14/08, Disputed: This is pretext. On 4/17/06, just prior to placing
needs to be present full-time. pg. Plaintiff on Forced FT Leave, Bryan admitted to Plaintiff:
3 “It’s not just the task 216:3·22. “Yes, the Department of Pathology continues to function
orientation of handling a well, as it has for many years, and, yes, you have made
4 duty. It’s being present many positive changes to the department.” [Lee Decl.
within the organization to (Doc. 266), Exh. 12 (Bryan memo to Jadwin of 4/17/06 at
5 influence the organization’s DFJ795); Bryan Depo at 332:12-22; Lee Decl. (Doc.
policies and practices. 266), Exh. 14 (Bryan’s Memo to Jadwin of 4/28/06 at
6 Organizations tend to drift DFJ1152)]. Later, Bryan testified that, as of April 28,
without the constancy of 2006, “actual functioning of the department of
7 leadership, because that is [pathology] actually was fairly good”. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
part of what a leader does is Exh. 3 (Bryan Depo at 332:12-22).].
8 monitor the performance to
ensure things stay on track, But in Bryan’s letter to the DHS of 7/25/06, he contradicts
9 and without that constant himself when explaining to the DHS that Plaintiff had
dialogue present, you can been demoted as follows: “Quality of care issues
10 find yourself getting off was not the basis for making this decision. To the
track. In the medical arena contrary, Dr. Jadwin has been on an extended leave of
11 when patient care is absence from the hospital and there was a need to provide
involved, you don’t allow it consistent administrative leadership within the
12 to get to the point where you department. In compliance with section 1265 and CLIA,
don’t have the leadership Philip Lee Dutt, M.D., has been selected as the interim
13 necessary. So that’s inferred director of the laboratory and will serve in that capacity
in it being a full-time until a permanent replacement is appointed.”
14 position.” [Lee Decl., Exh. 19 (Bryan letter to DHS of 7/25/06 at
Bates 0001619)(emphasis added)]. Bryan made no
15 mention in his letter of a failure to “influence” policies
and practices outside of the pathology department or
16 across KMC as an organization.
17 Moreover, this responsibility to “influence” policies and

procedures outside of the Pathology department, across
18 KMC as an organization, is conspicuously absent from
Plaintiff’s job description. In fact, the job description’s
19 only reference to “policies and procedures” is as follows:
“Oversees the development, implementation and
20 maintenance of department policies and procedures for
the clinical laboratory and pathology department,
21 including surgical pathology, cytopathology and autopsy
pathology.” [Lee Decl., Exh. 2 (Second Employment
22 Contract of 11/12/2002 at Section 2.a. of Exhibit A on
Bates DFJ00171)].
23
Bryan's "explanation" is a pretext for discrimination in
24 that Dr. Tai Yoo, Chair of Psychiatry, is a chair even
though he is not present full-time. Yoo testified that he
25 typically spent 25 to 30 hours per week at KMC [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 46 (Yoo Depo. at 20:4-15)], dividing his
26 time 50/50 between KMC and Kern Mental Health [Id. at
9:11-16; 20:4-11]. He has been employed by Defendant
27 County as a part-time chair since 8/1/01. [Id. at 9:25-
10:9]. He remains a chair and has not been removed.
28

1 a) Responsibilities and duties DFJ00046 See evidentiary objections.

of the pathology dept. chair
2 are set out in the KMC Disputed: Sections 6. through 6.4-3 of the Bylaws do
Medical Staff Bylaws, NOT contain any such provisions.
3 sections 6. through 6.4-3.
4 26. Mortgage verification of DFJ01343 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant and immaterial to
employment for Jadwin, excusing Defendants' liability under any of Plaintiff's
5 dated 6/22/06, noting that the counts.
probability of continued
6 employment for Jadwin was Bryan had solicited Plaintiff’s resignation earlier on
good and he was okay to 4/28/06. [Lee Decl., Exh. 14 (Bryan Memo to Jadwin of
7 return to work when well. 4/28/06 at DFJ001152)].
8 27. Letter from Dr. Harris 0001424 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
(writing on behalf of Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
9 Bryan) to Jadwin, dated evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
6/26/06, stating that he anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
10 (Jadwin) has been seen in
and around KMC and that Disputed: Bryan testified in deposition that this letter was
11 while he (Jadwin) is on drafted by him (not Harris). [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2
leave, he is not to enter the (Bryan Depo., 261:7-262:19)].
12 hospital except for seeking
medical attention. He is
13 also not to contact any
employee or faculty
14 member of KMC while on
leave.
15
28. In his letter of June 14, Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
16 2006, Bryan notifies Jadwin Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
that Jadwin will be 8/14/08, evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
17 removed as chair and tells pg. 257:9- anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
Jadwin to call him if he has 15
18 questions. Bryan states that Disputed: Bryan is not an impartial adjudicator. Offering
put the burden of Plaintiff to contact him was not adequate due process.
19 challenging the action or [Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 15 (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
asking for reconsideration 6/14/06 at DFJ1181); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 16
20 on Jadwin who never called (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of 6/26/06 at DFJ1346); Lee
him about the letter. Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes of 7/1/06 at
21 0009821); Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 1 (Jadwin email
to Bryan of 2/28/05 at DFJ355); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc.
22 267), Exh. 13 (Ragland Depo at 332:14-21); Lee Decl.
(Doc. 266), Exh. 8 (Bryan email to Harris of 11/8/05 at
23 0000503); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 11 (Ragland email
to Bryan of 2/23/06 at 0000507)].
24
25
26
27
28

1 29. According to Exhibit Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

303, Jadwin’s leave and all Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
2 allowances by the County 8/14/08, evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
expired by June 16th. After pg. 244:6- anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
3 that date, Bryan had no 16
authority to extend Undisputed that the document says what it says.
4 Jadwin’s employment
relationship. Disputed: Bryan did not lack authority to extend leave or
5 employment beyond June 16, 2006. Kern County Civil
Service Commission rule 1201.20 provided that Plaintiff
6 was permitted to have medical or recuperative leave of up
to 6 months CUMULATIVELY. [Lee Decl., Exh. 18
7 (CSC Rules, Rule 1201.20 on Bates 0001501)]. June 16 is
anyway.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 30. By June 2006, Jadwin Bryan See evidentiary objections.

had fully exhausted his rights Depo.,
2 and the institutional 8/14/08, Undisputed that the document says what it says.
obligation to grant him pgs.
3 medical leave. 280:21- Disputed: Bryan testified that, towards the end of his
281:4 leave, Plaintiff was requesting extension of his leave even
4 though he had fully his medical leave right under law and
County policy. This is pretext.
5
First, Bryan did not lack authority to extend leave or
6 employment beyond June 16, 2006. Kern County Civil
Service Commission rule 1201.20 provided that Plaintiff
7 was permitted to have medical or recuperative leave of up
to 6 months CUMULATIVELY. [Lee Decl., Exh. 18
8 (CSC Rules, Rule 1201.20 on Bates 0001501)]. June 16 is
anyway.
13
Second, Plaintiff was not asking for an extension of his
14 leave. As Defendants’ own Separate Statement (Doc. 259)
admits Plaintiff’s letter to Bryan of May 31, 2006 was
15 requesting more time to decide whether he would be
returning full-time or resigning, not more leave past
16 September 16, 2006. [Defendants’ Separate Statement
(Doc. 259), DMF 23]. Bryan’s testimony is pretext
17 manufactured after the fact to justify the Demotion.
18 31. Adherence to the Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Medical Staff Bylaws Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
19 afforded Jadwin the due 8/14/08, evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
process that he was entitled pg. 258:7- anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
20 to. 16
Disputed: The Bylaws’ failure to provide for due process
21 in connection with the Demotion is a violation of due
process. Because the Bylaws were ratified by the Kern
22 Board of Superviors, it establishes the 42 USC § 1983
liability of Defendant County under Monell.
23
Disputed: JCC minutes regarding the contemplated
24 demotion of the chair of the OB-GYN department stated:
“The problem is we have tied a portion of the chair’s
25 compensation to that position, that is a property right. Dr.
Perez is entitled to due process hearing for this reason.”
26 [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 18 (JCC Meeting Minutes of
9/10/07 at Agenda Item 6 on Bates 0009221)].
27
See evidentiary objections.
28

1 32. Tort Claims Act Exhibit 2 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Complaint, dated 7/3/06, to Second Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
2 Jadwin admits that he had Amended
used up his CFRA leave by Complaint
3 June 14th, 2006. Page 1 of
the Attachment (page 3 of
4 the entire complaint), Section
A, paragraph 1, last sentence
5 reads “As of June 14, 2006,
Complainant had taken 12
6 weeks of CFRA sick leave
and approximately 3-4 weeks
7 of County sick leave based
on doctor’s certifications
8 which he submitted.”
9 33. Memorandum to the Joint 0001476- See evidentiary objections.

Conference Committee 1565
10 (JCC) from Bryan, dated 0000073- Undisputed that the JCC “took [Bryan’s] advice”.
7/10106, recommending that 75
11 the Committee approve the Disputed: Evidence establishes that the JCC voted to
demotion of Jadwin from demote Plaintiff not only for the reasons that he gave in
12 chair of the pathology his memorandum, but also for whistleblower retaliation
department to staff and disability discrimination, as well as
13 pathologist. “This oppositional/participatory retaliation for threatening to file
recommendation to rescind lawsuit.
14 Dr. Jadwin’s appointment as
Chairman, Department of
15 Pathology, is based solely on
his continued non-
16 availability to provide the
leadership necessary for a
17 contributing member of the
medical staff leadership
18 group. KMC must have its
key personnel available, and
19 Dr. Jadwin has provided no
indication that he is
20 committed to return to work
or resume his duties as
21 chairman.” Also, “Dr. Jadwin
has made no attempt to
22 contact me concerning my
decision to relieve him of his
23 chairman duties nor has he
indicated any desire to
24 negotiate a new contract.”
JCC meeting minutes
25 confirm that the committee
took Bryan’s advice and they
26 did it for the reason that he
gave in his memorandum.
27
28

1 34. Ray Watson (hereinafter Watson See evidentiary objections.

referred to as Watson) Depo.,
2 testified that he only 8125/08, Disputed: Watson testified at his deposition that he clearly
remembers a discussion on pgs. recalled Defendant County had decided not to renew
3 removing Jadwin from the 13:17- Plaintiff’s contract. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson
department chair position; he 14:14 Depo. at 30:10-13).].Watson was asked twice if he
4 was quite clear (and he was recalled clearly whether it was to punish Plaintiff for
asked three times) that he did bring suit and each time he answered yes:
5 not remember any discussion
about Jadwin’s Q. Okay. What about the nonrenewal? I mean, do you
6 “termination.” He recall Dr. Jadwin’s physical absence being a reason for
affirmatively stated that he his nonrenewal of his contract?
7 knew of no discussions about A. Well, it could be that. It could be the fact that I think
Jadwin resigning or being by then he was -- probably was suing us. So why would
8 denied privileges. you want to establish a contractual relationship with
somebody who’s suing you.
9 Q. Okay. Well, he was also suing you at the time of his
removal or actually at the time of his --no, he wasn’t. He
10 wasn’t. Okay. But I mean, you say why would you
establish a contractual relationship with someone who’s
11 suing you, right?
A. Right.
12 Q. Was that -- does that mean -- are you just speculating
now, just guessing, or was that a consideration for his
13 nonrenewal?
A. Well, I remember it being discussed.
14 […]
Q. Okay. But you recall it being discussed at the JCC
15 meetings?
A. Yes.
16 [Id. at 110:12-111:5; 111:15-24].
17 Watson then re-affirmed a third time – volunteering it on

his own initiative – that oppositional retaliation was an
18 additional motivating factor for the Nonrenewal:
19 Q. So the question is: You’ve mentioned that for the

nonrenewal one of the reasons was that Dr. Jadwin wasn’t
20 available for work; is that correct or --
A. My understanding was that he had -- he had been on
21 medical leave, family leave, and had requested even more
leave, and that for that reason and the fact that he was
22 suing us, that we decided not to renew his contract.
[Id. at 113:15-114:4).].
23
Watson failure to recall discussion of Plaintiff’s
24 termination or denial of his medical privileges proves
nothing about the Nonrenewal and whether a discussion
25 about it occurred. A discussion of one doesn’t necessitate
or preclude a discussion of the others. Moreover, the
26 testimony Defendants cite to appeared over 100 pages
and 2 hours earlier in the deposition transcript than the
27 Nonrenewal discussion and arose in response to a
completely unrelated line of questioning. [Id. at 12:10-14;
28 13:17-14:2)].

1 35. Watson testified that he Watson See evidentiary objections.

became aware that Jadwin’s Depo.,
2 contract was not renewed 8/25/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Item 34 supra, which
although he could not give a pgs. 28:6- is incorporated in its entirety herein.
3 timeline as to when things 30:23
happened. He also testified Disputed: The fact that Watson couldn’t recall a formal
4 strongly that he does not JCC vote to not renew Plaintiff’s contract proves nothing
recall a vote taken on the about whether or not the JCC decided to not renew
5 nonrenewal “although [he] Plaintiff’s contract. JCC decision do not all require a
imagine[s] it was,” formal JCC vote. In any event, Watson confirmed several
6 times that he clearly recalled the JCC deciding on the
Nonrenewal.
7 36. Watson testified that the Watson See evidentiary objections.
fact that Jadwin was suing Depo.,
8 KMC was brought up in 8/25/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Item 34 supra, which
discussions of whether to pgs. is incorporated in its entirety herein.
9 renew Jadwin’s contract 110:12112
although he would not say it : 13 Disputed: On the one hand, Defendants argue that
10 was a consideration, only Watson’s testimony is “confused” and unreliable. Yet, In
that it was discussed. In their own motion, Defendants cite liberally to Watson’s
11 addition, it became obvious supposedly “unreliable” testimony when it suits them.
after a few questions that [Defendants’ Separate Statement (Doc. 259) at DMF 34
12 Watson was confused about on 9:16-22; at DMF 35 on 9:23-27; at DMF 145 on 34:4-
the sequence of events which 5; DFM 36 on 34:6-9]. Defendants’ argument is a bad
13 can lead to the inference that faith attempt to controvert Watson’s testimony when it is
he does not recall anything damaging, but to otherwise rely on it when it suits them.
14 specifically or correctly.
Watson was scrupulous about stating in his deposition
15 when he did or did not have clear or certain recall. [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson depo. at 13:17-14:19, at
16 38:9-40:5)]. Watson confirmed several times that he
clearly recalled the JCC deciding on the Nonrenewal for
17 the reasons he stated.
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson Depo. at 110:12-111:5;
18 111:15-24; at 113:15-114:4)].
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 a) Kern County Board of Decl. of See evidentiary objections.

Supervisors did not discuss Michael
2 the non-renewal of Jadwin’s Rubio, Disputed: Defendants’ declarations submitted by
employment agreement or 11/10/08, members of the Kern County Board of Supervisors
3 made any decisions ¶2; Decl. asserting that the Board never discussed or made any
regarding the non-renewal of of decision regarding nonrenewal or expiration of Plaintiff’s
4 the employment agreement. Raymond contract proves nothing about whether such a decision or
The subject never came Watson, discussion occurred at the JCC level. The absence of a
5 before the Board of 11/10/08, decision by the Board of Supervisors in no way precludes
Supervisors. ¶¶3, 4 and a decision being made by the JCC. Again, Watson
6 5; Decl. of confirmed several times that he clearly recalled the JCC
Mike deciding on the Nonrenewal.
7 Maggard, [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson Depo. at 30:10-13;
11/10/08, 110:12-111:5; 111:15-24; 113:15-114:4)].
8 ¶2; Decl.
of Jon Disputed: a party cannot create an issue of fact by a
9 McQuisto declaration contradicting his or her own deposition or
n, other sworn testimony. See Block v. City of Los Angeles
10 11/10/08, (9th Cir. 2001) 253 F3d 410, 419, fn. 2. The same rule
¶2; Decl. applies to postdeposition affidavits that contradict the
11 of Don affiant’s deposition testimony. Aerel, S.R.L. v. PCC
Maben, Airfoils, LLC (6th Cir. 2006) 448 F3d 899, 907–908; Bank
12 11/10/08, of Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Systems (7th Cir.
¶2 1996) 75 F3d 1162, 1169.
13
37. Letter from Karen Barnes DFJ01359 See evidentiary objections.
14 (hereinafter referred to as -1361
Barnes) to Plaintiffs attorney Disputed: The Bylaws’ failure to provide for due process
15 Eugene Lee, dated 7118/06, in connection with the Demotion is a violation of due
in which she mentions (pg. 2) process. Because the Bylaws were ratified by the Kern
16 that Jadwin was removed as Board of Superviors, it establishes the 42 USC § 1983
pathology department chair liability of Defendant County under Monell.
17 on 7/10/06 at a regularly
scheduled meeting of the
18 Joint Conference Committee,
pursuant to Bylaws article
19 IX, section 9.7-4 “removal of
a department chair may occur
20 with or without cause .. “
21 38. Plaintiffs’ attorney Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Eugene Lee agrees that Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
22 Jadwin was not removed as 8/14/08,
chair during his medical pg. 222:8-
23 leave. 13
24 39. Letter to Dr. Harris from DFJ01388 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Jadwin, dated 9111/06, -1389
25 stating that he (Jadwin) will
be returning to work on
26 9/18/06 and enclosed was a
doctor’s certification that he
27 was able to return to work
full-time.
28

1 40. Letter from David DFJ01398 Undisputed.

Culberson to Jadwin, dated
2 9/20/06, explaining the
reasons for reduction in
3 pay.
4 41. Letter from David DFJ01482 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Culberson to Jadwin, dated
5 12/7/06, putting Jadwin on
administrative leave with pay
6 and confining him to his
home during business hours,
7 pursuant to Kern County
Policy and Administrative
8 Procedures Manual section
124.3.
9
a) Kern County Policy and 0016941 See evidentiary objections.
10 Administrative Procedures
Manual, pg. 1:22, Section Undisputed that the document says what it says.
11 titled “Administrative Leave
with Pay.” “During the
12 administrative leave, the
employee shall be ordered to
13 remain at home and available
by telephone .. “.
14
42. Letter from Mark DFJ01701 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
15 Wasser to Eugene Lee, Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
dated 4/30/07, allowing evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
16 Jadwin to pursue his own anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
activities during the work
17 week and retaining him, at Undisputed that the document says what it says.
his usual salary, for
18 consulting. Disputed: Defendant County was not “retaining” Plaintiff
for consulting. Rather, the intent was to “run out’ the term
19 of his existing contract, which was due to expire on
October 4, 2007.
20 [Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog No. 43 at
53:3-9); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 22 (Rog. No.
21 44, 28:17-22); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 6
(Wasser Email to Lee of 5/1/07 at DFJ01705)].
22
23
43. Letter to Mark Wasser DFJ01703 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
24 from Eugene Lee, dated -1704
5/1/07, noting that on
25 4/28/07 and in several
following e-mails he was
26 notified that KMC wanted to
terminate Jadwin’s contract
27 and would not renew it on
10/4/07.
28

1 44. Exhibit 644 is an e-mail Jadwin See evidentiary objections.

with an amendment attached Depo.,
2 to it. The amendment is a 3/12/08, Undisputed that the amendment is a contract amendment
contract amendment which pgs. which Jadwin had to sign before returning to work.
3 Jadwin had to sign before 969:1-
returning to work. Exhibit 974:2 Disputed: Plaintiff’s confirmation of discussions with his
4 581 is also the same contract (Exhibits attorney about the amendment proves nothing, much less
amendment although Exhibit 644 and that Plaintiff negotiated the amendment with Defendants.
5 581 is signed. There are 581) In fact, later, Plaintiff confirmed he did not know whether
differences between Exhibit his attorney had engaged in negotiations or made
6 644 and 581, in proposals regarding the amendment.
subparagraphs “h” and “i”.
7 Jadwin confirmed that he had Disputed: Defendants cite DMF 44 in support of an
discussions with his attorney affirmative defense that the Paycut Amendment was a
8 about the amendment; novation of Plaintiff’s employment contract, thus
Jadwin does not know if his extinguishing all prior claims. This is an unpleaded
9 attorney negotiated any of affirmative defense which Defendants failed to plead as
the terms in it. Jadwin does recently as October 27, 2008, when they filed their
10 not know if his attorney Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. It should be
made proposals to KMC with stricken.
11 suggested changes in the
language of the amendment.
12 Jadwin was aware of the
changes at the time they
13 occurred but he does not
recall how the changes came
14 about. One change that
Jadwin recalls talking about
15 is the cut in his salary which
he didn’t agree with.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 45. The last two pages of Jadwin See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Exhibit 581 is Exhibit A Depo., Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts.
2 which is a job description. 3/12/08,
Jadwin confirms that he read 974:3~97 Disputed: Plaintiff had requested reasonable
3 it at the time of signing the 6:l2 accommodation of his disability by asking to extend his
amendment. Jadwin looked part-time medical leave. Bryan refused on 4/28/06,
4 at the tasks listed and does forcing Plaintiff onto Forced FT Leave.
not believe that any of those [Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 6 (Jadwin’s Request for
5 tasks require Leave Extension of 4/26/06 at DFJ00157), Exh. 4
accommodation. Jadwin does (Jadwin’s Email to Bryan, Chester, & Dutt of 3/16/06 at
6 not recall asking anyone with DFJ00752)]
the County for an
7 accommodation of any of the [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan Depo at 249:24-250:19;
tasks listed in Exhibit A. Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo.
8 at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-985:4).]
9 Plaintiff’s testimony is unrefuted: Defendant Bryan

admitted in Depo. that it was his idea that day to have
10 Plaintiff convert his part-time leave to full-time, based
upon a perception that Plaintiff’s part-time leave was
11 creating “issues” within the Pathology department (not a
concern that part-time work might worsen Plaintiff’s
12 condition).
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan Depo at 249:24-250:19;
13 Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-13); Exh. 5(Jadwin Depo.
at 983:23-984:1, 94:23-985:4).].
14
15
16
17 46. Jadwin testified that he Jadwin See evidentiary objections. Completely misstates
wanted his employment Depo., Plaintiff’s testimony.
18 contract renewed, but when 10/21/08,
presented with the fact that pg. 1011:
19 his employment contract in 161016:
place at the time of 19
20 nonrenewal contained his
reduced salary, he denied
21 wanting to renew that
contract.
22
47. Jadwin said that the Jadwin See evidentiary objections. Completely misstates
23 contract he wanted renewed Depo., testimony.
was his Department Chair 10/21/08,
24 contract. pgs. Disputed: What Plaintiff wanted is irrelevant
1032:1610 to establishing what he was willing to agree to in terms of
25 33: 3; pg. contract renewal. Plaintiff testified on the record that he
1043:12- expected his contract to be renewed on 10/4/07 and that
26 20 he would have continued prosecuting his lawsuit, had it
been renewed. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin Depo. at
27 1096:9-14; 1096:22-1097:3)].
28

1 JADWIN’S
ALLEGATIONS OF
2 REGULATORY
3 VIOLATIONS
4 48. Approved Cancer 0000623- See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Program Performance 630 Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
5 Report for KMC, dated evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
7/14/04, with a rating of “I anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
6 “meaning KMC’s Cancer
program-including number See evidentiary objections.
7 of meetings-is approved for
three years with Disputed: See evidentiary objections: Irrelevantas this is
8 commendation. allegedly a report issued as of 7/14/04, more than a year
before the October Conference of 10/12/05 and the
9 Credential Threat and before Plaintiff reported concerns
that the monthly oncology conference was not compliant
10 with accreditation requirements.
49. Exchange of e-mails 0000421- See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
11 between Toni Smith and 424 Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
Jadwin, dated 6/15/05, evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
12 about the PCC issues. In anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
0000423, Jadwin states that
13 a PCC must not be signed Undisputed that the document says what it says.
until the time of the
14 infusion, or KMC is not
meeting American
15 Association of Blood
Banks’ (hereinafter
16 referred to as AABB)
accreditation standards.
17
50. Typed notes, dated 0000575 See evidentiary objections:
18 1/10/06, of interviews done
to rebut Jadwin’s claim Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
19 that the meeting frequency Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
standard set by the cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
20 American College of
Surgeons (hereinafter
21 referred to as ACS) was not
being met at KMC.
22
51. In meeting on 2/22/06, 0000578 See evidentiary objections:
23 Jadwin alleges that KMC is
not meeting the ACS Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
24 standard for frequency of Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
staff meetings; was cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
25 rebutted during the
meeting that KMC is
26 meeting standard based on
2 surveys and paperwork.
27
28

1 52. In an e-mail to Peter DFJ00784 Undisputed.

Bryan dated 4/10/06,
2 Jadwin brings up non-
compliance with state
3 regulations, Joint
Commission for the
4 Accreditation of Hospital
Organizations (hereinafter
5 referred to as JCAHO),
and AABB on the issues of
6 the PCCs.
7 53. Notes of meeting with DFJ00788 See evidentiary objections:

Peter Bryan, Karen Barnes
8 and Jadwin on 4/13/06. Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
There is no problem with Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
9 the PCCs because 5 charts cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
were reviewed (and
10 approved) by JCAHO.
11 54. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00793 Undisputed.

from Jadwin, dated
12 4/17/06, claiming that the
JCAHO review was too
13 small of a sample so KMC
was not in compliance on
14 their handling of the PCCs
and there was a need for
15 action.
16 55. Gilbert Martinez, the Martinez See evidentiary objections.

Laboratory manager, recalls Depo.,
17 Jadwin telling him before 4/16/08, Disputed: Dr. Philip Dutt, Acting Chair of Pathology,
Thanksgiving in 2006 to pgs. 111: testified as PMK for the County on 8/29/08 that by the
18 prepare the laboratory for 12-118: Monday following Thanksgiving 2006, he had had a
possible inspections (so 22 conversation with Harris regarding Plaintiff’s statement to
19 sometime before 11/22/06). Martinez that “he was going to report the hospital to
He does not recall if Jadwin JCAHO, CNPS [sic] . . . either the Friday before
20 told him how Jadwin might Thanksgiving that year or the Monday after that
know about it. He remembers weekend.” [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 12 (Dutt Depo. at 10:5-
21 inspectors coming in from 24)].
the California Dept. of
22 Health Services (hereinafter
referred to as DHS) and
23 receiving written inquiries
from the CAP. These
24 inspections occurred several
months after Jadwin had
25 mentioned it. Jadwin did not
“confide” in him or tell him
26 that the inspections were
happening because of
27 whistleblowing by Jadwin.
28

1 a) CAP conducts routine Martinez See evidentiary objections.

inspections, unannounced, on Depo.,
2 a known periodic basis. 4/16/08,
pgs.
3 118:23-
120:19
4
5 56. Jadwin first reported Disputed only as to the statement “more than five years
concerns to JCAHO, CAP, after noticing alleged violations”. There is no support for
6 and DHS in November 28, this statement.
2006 (more than five years
7 after noticing alleged
violations).
8
a) Actual complaint filed DFJ02540 Undisputed.
9 with JCAHO by Jadwin. -2541
10 b) E-mail from JCAHO to DFJ01454 Undisputed.

11 acknowledging receipt of
complaint about KMC.
12
c) Letter from DHS to DFJ01459 Undisputed.
13 Jadwin, dated 12/1/06,
acknowledging receipt of
14 complaint.
15 57. E-mail to JCAHO from DFJ02538 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Jadwin, dated 12/8/06, -2539 Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts, as
16 wanting to talk with the evidenced by Defendants’ failure to cite this DMF
JCAHO investigator and anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
17 requesting quickness on the
investigation because KMC Misstates the evidence.
18 might be covering up
noncompliance evidence.
19 He brings up the issue of
skull flaps being stored on-
20 site.
21 58. Letter to KMC from 0001455- Undisputed.
Jadwin dated 12/13/06 1458
22 notifying hospital
administration that he has
23 notified governmental and
enforcement agencies of
24 alleged violations.
25
26
27
28

1 59. Letter from Dr. Dutt to 0020278 See evidentiary objections:

Gerald Hoeltge of the CAP,
2 dated 1/11/07, telling him Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
that Jadwin had never Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
3 informed him (Dutt) that cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
some tissue handling and
4 storage was occurring but Undisputed that unlicensed tissue handling and storage
the situation has been taken was occurring.
5 care of.
6 60. Letter to Dr. Dutt from 0020279 See evidentiary objections:

CAP, dated 3/22/07,
7 informing him that the Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
KMC laboratory continues Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
8 to be in compliance with cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
the CAP Standards for
9 Laboratory Accreditation.
10 61. Dr. Dutt believed that Dutt See evidentiary objections:

Jadwin, after returning Depo.,
11 from leave, might be 8/20/08, Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
intentionally issuing wrong pg. 296: Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
12 opinions to prove he was a 10- 19 cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
whistleblower.
13
14
DEPRESSION
15 DISABILITY,
16 REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATION,
17 INTERACTIVE
PROCESS
18 62. Jadwin described his Jadwin See evidentiary objections.
disability as severe Depo.,
19 depression, manifested by a 1/9/08, Undisputed.
lack of ability to concentrate; pgs.
20 loss of joy in his work; 414:24-
extreme anxiety and 418:12
21 difficulty sleeping. Jadwin
testified that he told Dr.
22 Kolb, during a meeting he
had with him in 2003, that he
23 was depressed. Jadwin
thought this meeting was a
24 one-on-one weekly meeting
that each department chair
25 had with Dr. Kolb. Jadwin
said that Dr. Kolb must have
26 noticed that he was depressed
because he would often ask
27 him if he was alright.
28

1 63. Jadwin told Dr. Kolb that Jadwin See evidentiary objections.
he suffered from depression Depo.,
2 when he notified him of the 1/9108, Undisputed.
weekly half-day medical pgs.
3 leave day off to see his 491:1-
therapist. 493:17
4
64. Jadwin asked Dr. Kolb Jadwin See evidentiary objections.
5 for accommodations for his Depo.,
disability by requesting time 1/9108, Undisputed.
6 off for his therapist visits. Dr. pgs. 506:
Kolb granted that 16-507: 1
7 accommodation.
8 65. Jadwin had an episode of Jadwin See evidentiary objections.

depression in the 1990s Depo.,
9 before coming to work at 1/9/08,
KMC. Jadwin affirmed his pgs.
10 earlier testimony that his 452:4-
recent depression started in 455:19
11 2002 or 2003. Jadwin said Pg. 455:8-
that he was taking weekly 13
12 half-day leaves starting in or
about 2003 and he told Dr.
13 Kolb it was because of his
problems with radiology and
14 others.
15 66. Bryan does not recall Bryan See evidentiary objections:

Jadwin mentioning to him Depo.,
16 about depression, 8/14/08, Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
sleeplessness, etc. nor did pgs. 1ll: Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
17 Bryan notice behavior that 12113: 2 cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
he would call mental and
18 illness. 128:16- Disputed: This is pretext. Bryan testified that he recalled
129:3 receiving a letter from Plaintiff on 1/9/06 in which
19 Plaintiff stated he was “depressed” and requested leave
due to his depression. [Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Bryan
20 Depo at 105:7-106:2); Lee Decl., Exh. 9 (Jadwin letter to
Bryan of 1/9/05 on Bates 0001140)]. Defendants also
21 admit that Plaintiff had told Kolb he was depressed in
2003 and was accommodated in the form of part-time
22 leave so he could obtain treatment. [Defendants’ Motion
(Doc. 262) at 27:12-14 (“Plaintiff first complained of
23 depression in 2003. He told Dr. Marvin Kolb, Chief
Medical Officer at the time, that he suffered from an
24 inability to concentrate, anxiety, and sleeplessness”);
Defendants’ Separate Statement (Doc. 259) at DMF 62-
25 64]. On 1/17/06, Bryan also sent a letter to the Kern
Board of Supervisors in which he stated he had become
26 concerned about Plaintiff’s “emotional health”. [Lee
Decl., Exh. 10 (Bryan memo to BOS of 1/17/06 at item 8
27 on Bates 0001567)].
28

1 67. Jadwin only discussed his Jadwin See evidentiary objections.

disability with Dr. Kolb. Depo.,
2 When asked whether he had 3/12/08, Disputed: Bryan testified that he recalled receiving a letter
ever told Peter Bryan, Jadwin pgs. 976: from Plaintiff on 1/9/06 in which Plaintiff stated he was
3 said that subsequently during 13983: 2 “depressed” and requested leave due to his depression.
one-on-one meetings with lines [Lee Supp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Bryan Depo at 105:7-106:2);
4 Bryan he had mentioned 977:5-8 Lee Decl., Exh. 9 (Jadwin letter to Bryan of 1/9/05 on
being depressed by lack of and lines Bates 0001140)].
5 action on the concerns 977:24-
Jadwin was raising. When 978:8 and On 1/17/06, Bryan also sent a letter to the Kern Board of
6 pressed on whether he had lines 981: Supervisors in which he stated he had become concerned
ever actually told Peter 17-982: 1 about Plaintiff’s “emotional health”. [Lee Decl., Exh. 10
7 Bryan he was disabled, and lines (Bryan memo to BOS of 1/17/06 at item 8 on Bates
Jadwin said that in late 2005 982: 18- 0001567)].
8 or early 2006, he told Bryan 24 lines
that sometimes he was so 978: 15- Defendants also admit that Plaintiff had told Kolb he was
9 depressed he couldn’t work 979:1 depressed in 2003 and was accommodated in the form of
at KMC anymore until it lines part-time leave so he could obtain treatment. [Defendants’
10 fixed some of his concerns. 979:24- Motion (Doc. 262) at 27:12-14 (“Plaintiff first
Jadwin said that he also told 980:8 complained of depression in 2003. He told Dr. Marvin
11 Dr. Yoo, head of psychiatry, lines Kolb, Chief Medical Officer at the time, that he suffered
that he was depressed from 982:9-24 from an inability to concentrate, anxiety, and
12 working at the hospital. sleeplessness”); Defendants’ Separate Statement (Doc.
Jadwin does not recall 259) at DMF 62-64]. Once Plaintiff informed Kolb, the
13 talking to Dr. Dutt about this CMO, of his disability, Defendant County was legally on
issue. Jadwin could not recall notice of his disability.
14 any other people at KMC
that he talked to about his
15 disability. In fact, Jadwin
would not use the term
16 “disabled” just that he could
not work there.
17
68. When asked what Jadwin See evidentiary objections:
18 considerations there were Depo.,
in renewing a contract with 10/21/08, Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
19 KMC, Jadwin replied “All pgs. Plaintiff’s counts, as evidenced by Defendants’ failure to
of the working 1055:13- cite this DMF anywhere in their motion brief (Doc. 262).
20 environment situations. 1056: 15
The patient quality issues,
21 the administration, what-
what type of administrative
22 operation is there. The
emphasis on quality,
23 interest in quality. Interest
in patient safety. The
24 collaborative working
environment. Are the other
25 physicians going to be
responsible in working for
26 the betterment of patient
care, or are they just going
27 to be working for their own
self-interest.”
28

1 JADWIN’S ERRORS
Failure to Produce Timely
2 or Correct Diagnoses
3
69. Dr. Ragland brings up the Ragland See evidentiary objections.
4 issue that a stack of FNA Depo.,
reports that Jadwin had given 8/22/08, Disputed: Ragland testified that he never even bothered to
5 him had issue dates after the pgs. investigate his serious fraud concern by speaking with
date of a double read, in each 171:5- Plaintiff or UCLA or even Dutt directly. Had he done so,
6 case, was done by UCLA. 172:5 and Plaintiff would have explained that the he issued
This raises the possibility 328:7- diagnoses to clinicians PRIOR to sending reports out to
7 that Jadwin waited to enter a 329: 14 UCLA for confirmatory review and that when he later
diagnosis until the double received UCLA’s confirmatory reports, he entered them
8 read had come back from into the KMC computer system, which automatically
UCLA so that he could be in updates the “Completed” report date to the date of the last
9 100% agreement with modification. The “Completed” date does not equate to
UCLA. the date when Plaintiff issued his own diagnosis that was
10 later confirmed by UCLA. This quickness to conclude
Plaintiff had engaged in wrongdoing -- by fraudulently
11 withholding diagnoses until UCLA issued their reports so
that he could issue parallel diagnoses -- without informing
12 Plaintiff of the suspicions or allowing him to explain
himself was typical of how Ragland and KMC officers
13 dealt with Plaintiff. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
Depo. at 171:22-172:7; 173:19-23; 174:7-175:24; 177:15-
14 176:12; 181:20-182:3); [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 5].
Even worse, Ragland spread rumors of Plaintiff’s
15 suspected FNA fraud so that he was tried and convicted in
the court of opinion. [(Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 27 (Abraham
16 Depo. at 73:15-74:16)]. Abraham admitted she still
doesn’t trust Jadwin's competence. [Id. at 77:10-18].
17 70. Letter from Dr. Ang to 0000690- See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Dr. Perez, Peter Bryan, Dr. 691, Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts. It
18 Kolb, and Dr. Munoz, dated 0000736 predates the October Conference of 12/16/05 by several
2/20/02, containing formal years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
19 complaints of misconduct increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
against Jadwin. Complaint #3 $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
20 states that Jadwin failed to County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance as of
pass the quarterly proficiency that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of Employee
21 tests on cervical pap smears Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
so those tests are sent out. It
22 states that this was an Disputed: Plaintiff’s proficiency with cervical pap smears
unnecessary cost and delay is irrelevant. KMC had outsourced Pap smear analysis and
23 because the other three was no longer conducting them by 2002. Moreover,
pathologists in the Kolb’s investigative report concluded that there was no
24 department could examine basis for any of Ang’s accusations. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
the pap smears because they 20 (Kolb memo to Perez of 3/12/02 at Bates 0000676-
25 have maintained their 677)].
proficiency.
26
27
28

1 a) Document asserting 0000737 See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin’s failing test scores
2 and the fact that the See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
Department of Pathology has Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts. It
3 not been sued for medical predates the October Conference of 12/16/05 by several
malpractice in 23 years. years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
4 increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
$10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
5 County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance as of
that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of Employee
6 Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
7 Disputed: Plaintiff’s proficiency with cervical pap smears

is irrelevant. KMC had outsourced Pap smear analysis and
8 was no longer conducting them by 2002. Moreover,
Kolb’s investigative report concluded that there was no
9 basis for any of Ang’s accusations. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
20 (Kolb memo to Perez of 3/12/02 at Bates 0000676-
10 677)].
11 Whether or not the Department of Pathology has not been

sued for malpractice is irrelevant to prove that such
12 malpractice did or did not occur.
13
b) Jadwin’s actual (failing) See evidentiary objections:
14 test for cervical pap smears.
This test is conducted by the Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
15 College of American Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
Pathologists (CAP). Of 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
16 interest, on Case #3 Jadwin Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
marked “unsatisfactory for salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
17 evaluation” when the Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
accurate diagnosis was performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
18 “squamous cell carcinoma.” (Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
DFJ00247).
19
Disputed: Plaintiff’s proficiency with cervical pap smears
20 is irrelevant. KMC had outsourced Pap smear analysis and
was no longer conducting them by 2002. Moreover,
21 Kolb’s investigative report concluded that there was no
basis for any of Ang’s accusations. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
22 20 (Kolb memo to Perez of 3/12/02 at Bates 0000676-
677)].
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 71. Report to Maureen 0001059- See evidentiary objections.

Martin from Jadwin, dated 1072
2 11/20/02, on the results of Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
the evaluations of the Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
3 pathologists (Jadwin and 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
Lang) by resident physicians Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
4 and staff physicians in salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
surgery. On a three-point Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
5 scale, where 2 means performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
satisfactory and 3 means (Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
6 needs improvement, Jadwin DFJ00247).
scored low on timeliness
7 (lower than Lang), IOC Disputed: Defendants neglect to mention that Plaintiff
quality, completeness, and scored higher than Lang on 14 out of 16 of the criteria and
8 clarity of diagnosis. Jadwin also overall.
blamed unhappiness of a Dr.
9 Prunes for his low scores.
10 72. Twenty-nine (29) 0001163- See evidentiary objections.

medical reports from 2004 1310
11 and 2005 with all of the Disputed: Ragland testified that he never even bothered to
following in common: 1) all investigate his serious fraud concern by speaking with
12 are FNA reports; 2) all were Plaintiff or UCLA or even Dutt directly. Had he done so,
processed in-house and then Plaintiff would have explained that the he issued
13 sent to outside labs for diagnoses to clinicians PRIOR to sending reports out to
independent diagnosis; and UCLA for confirmatory review and that when he later
14 3) the turn-around time for received UCLA’s confirmatory reports, he entered them
the final diagnosis ranged into the KMC computer system, which automatically
15 from three weeks to five or updates the “Completed” report date to the date of the last
six months. modification. The “Completed” date does not equate to
16 the date when Plaintiff issued his own diagnosis that was
later confirmed by UCLA. This quickness to conclude
17 Plaintiff had engaged in wrongdoing -- by fraudulently
withholding diagnoses until UCLA issued their reports so
18 that he could issue parallel diagnoses -- without informing
him of the suspicions or allowing him to explain himself
19 was typical of how Ragland and KMC officers dealt with
Plaintiff. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9: 171:22-172:7; 173:19-
20 23; 174:7-175:24; 177:15-176:12; 181:20-182:3].
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 73. Letter from Dr. Roy to DFJ00363 See evidentiary objections.

2 complaining that samples Defendant County retained outside pathology experts and
from 2 cases still had not sent out the pathology cases of which Roy complained
3 been analyzed and diagnosed and several others to such experts for evaluation of
and were over one week late. Plaintiff’s performance. The experts determined that
4 Plaintiff’s performance had been exemplary. Dr. William
Colburn was retained by Kern County to evaluate 21 of
5 Plaintiff’s pathology reports. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 22
(Colburn Agreement with Kern County of 5/15/06)]. Dr.
6 Colburn issued an extensive report 3 months later that
concluded that Plaintiff’s overall performance was found
7 to “exceed the usual standard of care exercised by a
practicing surgical pathologist in a busy tertiary
8 community hospital”, that Plaintiff’s reports were
“completed in what I believe to be a timely manner”, that
9 his reports were “authoritative in all aspects rendering
concise tissue diagnoses”, that he “appropriately solicited
10 ‘expert’ extramural consultation opinions from noted”
pathologists, and “to his credit constantly up-dated the
11 primary surgeon of record in all instances as to their
progress”. He also concurred with Plaintiff’s final
12 diagnoses in 20 of 21 cases. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 23
(Colburn Report to Barnes of 8/30/06 at Bates 0025924)].
13
Moreover, Harris, then-CMO, testified that “before
14 [Plaintiff’s] leave of absence there was no quality
concern. I’ve said that four times now. There was no
15 quality concern over the cases prior to October of 2006.”
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 192:7-13); see
16 also Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 409:21-
410:3)]. Harris further testified: “I wasn’t even aware that
17 his competency was an issue in this case.” When
Plaintiff’s counsel responded: “Well, it certainly wasn’t
18 from our view”, Mr. Wasser, defense counsel of record,
volunteered: “It’s not from the defense either, but keep
19 going, Counsel. We covered that before.” [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 25 (Harris Depo at 411:4-20)].
20
Regarding the period after Plaintiff’s return to work as a
21 staff pathologist on 10/4/06, Harris testified that all
complaints about Plaintiff’s competency were directed to
22 him [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo. at 60:14-22)];
and that Defendant County never conducted any peer
23 review in response to any of those complaints. [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo. at 58:4-59:1)].
24
25
26
27
28

1 74. Letter to Dr. Roy from DFJ00364 See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin, dated 4/20/05, in -366
2 response to his complaint Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
about late diagnoses. On Plaintiff’s counts.
3 page 3 Jadwin writes
“Pathology diagnoses are Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
4 consensus based, with few DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
gold standards to affirm
5 accuracy. Consultants offer
opinions, not accurate
6 diagnoses. There is no
universally agreed upon
7 definition for what
constitutes an ‘accurate’
8 diagnosis.”
9 75. Notes by Dr. Harris, 0027066- See evidentiary objections.

dated 6/8/05, of a meeting 27068
10 between himself and Dr. Roy Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
in which Dr. Roy again raises Plaintiff’s counts.
11 his concerns with the
pathology department. Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
12 DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
13 76. Notes by Dr. Harris, 0027069- See evidentiary objections.

dated 7/1/05, of a meeting 27070
14 between himself and Dr. Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
Roy. Dr. Roy had specific Plaintiff’s counts.
15 examples of his complaints
about the pathology Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
16 department including three DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
missed diagnoses and an
17 example-by name and report
number--()f a pathology
18 report changed after the fact
by Jadwin.
19
77. Letter from Dr. Roy to DFJ00439 See evidentiary objections.
20 Jadwin, dated 7/15/05, ,
responding to Jadwin’s letter DFJ00437 Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
21 to him dated 6/5/05 and Plaintiff’s counts.
stating that he (Dr. Roy) has
22 raised pathology department Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
mistakes, delays and DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
23 discrepancies with Jadwin
many times before.
24
78. Phone message from Dr. 0000506 See evidentiary objections.
25 Roy, dated 11/18/05,
identifying a patient error by Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
26 Jadwin. Plaintiff’s counts.
27 Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
28

1 79. Letter from Dr. Roy to 0000434- See evidentiary objections.

Dr. Harris, dated 2/22/06, 476
2 identifying 19 cases (with Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
medical records backup) Plaintiff’s counts.
3 where KMC pathology
department was wrong in Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
4 their diagnosis, or very late DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
in getting a diagnosis, or
5 changing an initial wrong
diagnosis.
6
a) Pathology Quality 0018516 See evidentiary objections.
7 Management Policy,
September 2005, “Correction Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
8 of significant error must be Plaintiff’s counts.
made through a corrected
9 report.” Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
10
c) Two letters from Dr. Felix 0000432- See evidentiary objections.
11 at USC to Dr. Roy, dated 433
3115/06 and 3/16/06, with to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s
12 diagnoses of samples that Dr. counts.
Roy sent to him. Handwritten
13 notes on bottom of letters Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
describe discrepancy with DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
14 KMC pathology diagnosis
and that pathology changed
15 its diagnosis in one instance.
16 80. After returning from Dutt See evidentiary objections.

leave, Jadwin had to be told Depo.,
17 to slow down on regular case 8/20/08, Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
work because he was going pg. 285:6- Plaintiff’s counts.
18 too fast and making errors. 23
Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
20
Other Mistakes
21
81. E-mail from Reyes to Dr. 0000398 See evidentiary objections.
22 Harris and Tony Smith, dated
4/17/06, reporting that Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
23 Jadwin was making copies of Plaintiff’s counts.
patient files which is a Title
24 22 violation. Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
25
26
27
28

1 82. Minutes of the meeting of 0000899 See evidentiary objections.

the pathology/histology
2 department on 10/17/06. It Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
was noted that Dr. Shertukde Plaintiff’s counts.
3 was concerned that blades
were not being removed once Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
4 grossing was done. She and DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
Dr. Dutt remove and discard
5 the blades immediately.
6 83. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to DFJ01449 See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, DFJ01446
7 reminding him of a rush case -1447 Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
that Jadwin failed to process Plaintiff’s counts.
8 promptly and counseling
Jadwin to remember it when Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
9 criticizing others. DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
10 84. E-mail from Tracy 0000823 See evidentiary objections.

Lindsey to Ramona Case,
11 dated 11/27/06, stating that Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
Jadwin had labeled some (9) Plaintiff’s counts.
12 placentas wrong and she
gave the incorrect labels Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
13 alongside the correct labels. DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
14 85. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to 0000862 See evidentiary objections.

Yolanda Figueroa, dated
15 12/7/06, acknowledging her Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
report that Jadwin had left Plaintiff’s counts.
16 two long blades and a scalpel
out after he was finished. Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
18 Figueroa vigorously denies that this claim is true.
(“Jadwin Opp. Decl.”) para. 6].
19
86. Report from Dr. Dutt to 0000882- See evidentiary objections.
20 Peer Review Committee, 895
dated 12/14/06, describing Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
21 with documentation five Plaintiff’s counts.
mistakes by Jadwin: 1)
22 missed diagnosis and failure Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
or refusal to seek outside DMF 73 supra is incorporated herein in its entirety.
23 consultation (with backup
letter from Dr. McBride); 2)
24 misdiagnosis of prostate
carcinoma and of prostatic
25 biopsies; 3) missed diagnosis
of thyroid microcarcinoma;
26 4) performance of sternal
bone marrow examination;
27 and 5) assignment of
procedures to physician
28 without privileges.

1
JADWIN’S INABILITY
2 TO GET ALONG WITH
OR COMMUNICATE
3
WELL WITH OTHERS
4 Policy
5 87. Policy Statement of the 0010685- Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Disruptive Behavior, 10688
6 Discrimination & Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
Harassment Policy “It is the was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
7 policy of Kern Medical It could not have served as the basis for any of
Center that all associates are Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
8 expected to conduct
themselves at all times while
9 on hospital premises in a
courteous, professional,
10 respectful, collegial, and
cooperative manner. This
11 applies to interactions and
communications with or
12 relating to physicians,
nursing and technical
13 personnel, other caregivers,
other hospital personnel, .. “
14 [emphasis added]
15 88. Section V Item A of the 0010686- Undisputed that the document says what it says.
Kern Medical Center 10687
16 Procedure on Disruptive Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
Behavior, Discrimination and was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
17 Harassment Policy It could not have served as the basis for any of
“Examples of prohibited Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
18 conduct include but are not
limited to the following ..
19
a) 6. Use of racial, ethnic, 0010686 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
20 epithetic or derogatory
comments.. Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
21 was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
It could not have served as the basis for any of
22 Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
23 b) 8. Use of medical record 0010686 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
entries to criticize KMC
24 associates, policies or Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
equipment, other was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
25 practitioners, or others; It could not have served as the basis for any of
Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
26
27
28

1 c) 14. Persisting to criticize, 0010687 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
or to discuss performance or
2 quality concerns with, Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
particular KMC associates or was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
3 others after being asked to It could not have served as the basis for any of
direct such comments Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
4 exclusively through other
channels; .. “
5
89. Jadwin was dealt with Harris Undisputed that the document says what it says.
6 pursuant to the Disruptive Depo.,
Physician Policy. 8/13/08, Disputed: This is pretext. This policy is irrelevant as it
7 pgs. was ratified in May 2007 during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave.
330:21- It could not have served as the basis for any of
8 332: 3 Defendants’ actions prior to 2007.
9 Harris himself testified that he wasn’t sure if the policy

was in place when he allegedly disciplined Plaintiff. In
10 fact, the policy was ratified in May 2007. By that time,
Plaintiff had been on Admin Leave and restricted to his
11 home for 6 months.
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 331:21-332:3)].
12
13 Pulling Dr. Lau’s Tie
14 90. E-mail to Michael Ewald 0000260 See evidentiary objections.
from Jadwin, dated 10/9/03, (Exhibit
15 telling Ewald how to conduct 560) Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
the investigation into the Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
16 “tiepulling” incident, who to 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
talk to, and what questions to Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
17 ask. salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
18 performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
(Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
19 DFJ00247).
20 Disputed: The investigator concluded: “Dr. Jadwin has
expressed regret over the incident. This appears to be an
21 isolated incident, and there have been no related
complaints against Dr. Jadwin either before or after this
22 incident.” [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 54 (Investigation Report
of 10/21/03 at “Investigative Findings” item 4 on Bates
23 0000033)].
24
91. Confidential file of 0000031- For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
25 investigation of Jadwin 70 supra.
pulling Dr. Lau by his tie,
26 dated 10/21/03.
27
28

1 a) Portion of Jadwin’s 0000061- For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
interview blaming Dr. Lau 63 supra.
2 for the incident, alleging a
prior history of Dr. Lau being
3 afraid of him because Jadwin
(allegedly) points out Dr.
4 Lau’s many mistakes.
5 b) During Jadwin’s 0000063 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
interview, conducted on supra.
6 10/17/03, Jadwin accepts that
he pulled the tie, says he
7 cannot really remember.
8 c) The investigator finds, by 0000034 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
a preponderance of the supra.
9 evidence, that (Item #2)
Jadwin violated the
10 Workplace Violence Policy
of the County of Kern and
11 potentially endangered the
quality or efficiency of
12 patient care (because both
Jadwin and Lau testified that
13 Lau told Jadwin that he could
not accompany him because
14 he had patient work to do).
15 92. Letter from Dr. Kolb to DFJ00246 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
Jadwin, dated 11/26/03, supra.
16 reprimanding him for pulling
Dr. Lau by his tie.
17
93. Letter to Dr. Lau from DFJ00590 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 90
18 Jadwin, dated 10/19/05, supra.
apologizing for past wrongs.
19
20 Dispute with Radiology
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 94. Dr. Ragland implied that Ragland See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin was wrong in the Depo.,
2 dispute with the radiology 8/22/08, Defendant County retained an outside consultant to
department because the pgs. review FNA procedures at KMC in 2004. The consultant,
3 procedurist (the radiologist) 155:2- David Lieu observed the radiologists engaging in just one
should chose the equipment 156:13 FNA procedure on a single day. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 26
4 he uses (gauge of needle is (Lieu Report of 5/3/04 at DFJ00260)]. By contrast, he
an example) because that is reviewed 200 of Plaintiff’s FNA reports. [Id. at
5 who is performing the task. DFJ00266]. Despite this bias, he nevertheless concluded:
1) the radiologist still managed to err in the one procedure
6 Lieu witnessed [Id. at DFJ00261], 2) Plaintiff made no
errors in any of his 200 reports [Id. at DFJ00266]; 3)
7 Radiologists needed to improve [Id. at DFJ00269]; and 4)
Plaintiff should set up a weekly FNA clinic whereby
8 pathologists would take FNAs on superficial masses,
replacing the radiologists. [Id. at DFJ00268].
9
Ragland himself admitted that Lieu had found the
10 radiologists’ FNA technique could be “improved”. [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland Depo. at 230:23-25)]. By
11 contrast, he admitted that Lieu had “determined that
[Plaintiff] had sufficient [FNA] skill”. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
12 Exh. 9 (Ragland Depo. at 226:18-22)].
13 Later, Ragland admitted that the FNA concerns Plaintiff

had raised were not just a communication issue but a valid
14 “patient care issue” and that he had always known that
even from the beginning. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9
15 (Ragland Depo. at 361:3-18)]. Yet, he had earlier
characterized the FNA issue as merely a “feud” between
16 pathology radiology and that the issue was the need for
Plaintiff to improve his “communication”. [Lee Opp.
17 Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland Depo. at 219:25-220:7; 220:16-
21)]. This establishes Ragland’s retaliatory animus.
18
Abraham shows her retaliatory animus when she likewise
19 minimizes the FNA issue as merely a “communication”
problem and unlike Ragland refuses to admit it was a
20 patient care issue. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 27 (Abraham
Depo. at 67:7-15)]. Abraham later testified that, despite
21 Lieu’s report, “we still were not satisfied with whether or
not the – the pathology readings of the FNA was – was –
22 was adequate.” [Id. at 56:16-22)]. She also testified that,
even after the Lieu report came out, there remained
23 doubts about Plaintiff’s competence as a pathologist.
[Id. at 63:14-17] and that she remained loyal to her long-
24 time friends, the radiologists. [Id. at 73:1-5].
25 When Plaintiff’s FNA reports were later confirmed as

100% accurate by ongoing outside reviews by UCLA,
26 Ragland concocted far-fetched suspicions of fraud by
Plaintiff which he unsuccessfully investigated, but
27 directly confronted Plaintiff with. See Plaintiff’s
Response to DMF 69 supra, which is incorporated in its
28 entirety herein.

1 95. Dr. Abraham, while Abraham See Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 94 supra, which is
discussing the FNA Depo., incorporated in its entirety herein.
2 Consulting Report, 8/18/08,
mentioned that the pgs. 59:6- See evidentiary objections.
3 radiologists were upset with 60:2
Jadwin because he was
4 accusing them of too many
inadequate specimens
5 (“unsatisfactory for
evaluation”) when there were
6 relatively few complaints of
that before Jadwin arrived.
7
a) Jadwin’s actual (failing) 0000737 See evidentiary objections.
8 test for cervical pap smears.
This test is conducted by the Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
9 College of American Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
Pathologists (CAP). Of 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
10 interest, on Case #3 Jadwin Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
marked “unsatisfactory for salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
11 evaluation” when the Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
accurate diagnosis was performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
12 “squamous cell carcinoma.” (Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
DFJ00247).
13
Disputed: Plaintiff’s proficiency with cervical pap smears
14 is irrelevant. KMC had outsourced Pap smear analysis and
was no longer conducting them by 2002. Moreover,
15 Kolb’s investigative report concluded that there was no
basis for any of Ang’s accusations. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
16 20 (Kolb memo to Perez of 3/12/02 at Bates 0000676-
677)].
17
18 96. Dr. Abraham talked Abraham See Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 94 supra, which is
about the lack of trust Depo., incorporated in its entirety herein.
19 between the other doctors 8/18/08,
and Jadwin, which the FNA pgs. 62: See evidentiary objections.
20 Consulting Project report 16-64:3
addresses as communication
21 problems.
22 97. Kern Medical Center DFJ00251 Undisputed.

FNA Consulting Project -270
23 report by Dr. David Lieu, But see Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 94 supra, which is
M.D., M.B.A., dated 5/3/04. incorporated in its entirety herein.
24
a) Consultant’s core issue is DFJ00255 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
25 the lack of communication to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
and complete distrust herein.
26 between radiology and
pathology with negative See evidentiary objections.
27 ramifications for the
clinicians and administration.
28

1 b) Consultant agreed with DFJ00257 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
radiologists that long clinical to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
2 history on the FNA reports herein.
was unnecessary.
3 See evidentiary objections.
4 c) “ .. Dr. Jadwin and DF100260 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
radiologists do not to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
5 communicate at this level. herein.
This suggests that a
6 breakdown in
communication is the
7 fundamental problem. This
bridge was burned down long
8 ago.”
9 d) “Finally, both radiology DFJ00269 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
and pathology will work to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
10 together to find the best herein.
needle for deep FNAs.”
11
98. E-mail to Drs. Kercher DFJ00289 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
12 and Kolb from Jadwin, dated -290 to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
9/3/04, stating “You cannot herein.
13 dictate the size of the needle
by policy” and calling Dr.
14 Lieu “unjustifiably
pompous,”
15
99. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00319 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
16 from Jadwin, dated 2/2/05, -320 to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
listing his suggestions for herein.
17 improvement on the FNA
issue. Jadwin also states that
18 the radiology department was
“substantially at fault” for the
19 conflict between the
departments. He requested a
20 formal apology from the
radiology department to
21 himself and the pathology
department. He also
22 requested (in bold lettering) a
public announcement at the
23 next Medical Executive
Committee (hereinafter
24 referred to as MEC) meeting
that there are no quality
25 issues involving the
pathology department and
26 Drs. Amin, Abraham, Munoz
and Naderi should be
27 standing at the podium
during the announcement.
28

1 100. Exchange of e-mails DFJ00353 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
between Dr. Ragland and -354 to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
2 Jadwin, dated 2/25/05, in herein.
which Jadwin complains
3 about some comments made Despite the fact that Ragland was chair of the quality
by the radiologists at the committee and the fact that, as he himself testified, he
4 February QM meeting and knew from the beginning that the FNA issue was a patient
informing Dr. Ragland to be care issue, he refused to let Plaintiff address it at the
5 prepared for Jadwin to Quality Management meeting. He retaliated against
request him to call for Plaintiff by dismissing the issue as “battling doctors” and
6 supporting documentation attacking Plaintiff for his “poor” communication skills.
from radiology or announce
7 that the previous comments
were unsupported. Dr.
8 Ragland shot back his
displeasure at the continuing
9 conflict between radiology
and pathology, and stated
10 that his committee will not
become a battleground for
11 this conflict.
12
Length of
13 Presentations/October 2005
Oncology Conference
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 101. Exchange of e-mails DFJ00241 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

between Dr. Ragland and -242 Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts. It
2 Jadwin, dated 11/19 & predates the October Conference of 12/16/05 by several
11/20/03, about the last years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
3 Quality Management increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
meeting. Dr. Ragland $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
4 contradicted Jadwin’s County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance as of
statement that the pathology that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of Employee
5 presentation during the Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
meeting was 20 minutes; Dr.
6 Ragland said it went on Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
much longer than 20 minutes to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
7 and proceeded to give Jadwin herein.
advice on which information
8 was most important to Despite the fact that Ragland was chair of the quality
present and how it could be committee and the fact that, as he himself testified, he
9 presented succinctly. knew from the beginning that the FNA issue was a patient
care issue, he refused to let Plaintiff address it at the
10 Quality Management meeting. He retaliated against
Plaintiff by dismissing the issue as “battling doctors” and
11 attacking Plaintiff for his “poor” communication skills.
12 In one email exchange with Bryan, he expressed his

disdain for Plaintiff’s whistleblowing efforts: “that was
13 one of the most distasteful event I have ever participated
in [Plaintiff] has fixed his department so now he is going
14 to fix us?” [Lee Decl., Exh. 11 (Ragland email to Bryan
of 2/23/06 at 0000507)]. Bryan made no bones about
15 indicating that his allegiance lay with Ragland, Harris,
Abraham and Kercher: “I know it was really challenging
16 to remain cordial and not combative [with Plaintiff], and
goodness a couple of you could have really hit back”,
17 even as he portrayed himself as an impartial adjudicator to
Plaintiff. [Ibid.].
18
In his depo testimony, Ragland was so extreme in his
19 retaliatory animus against Plaintiff, he became almost a
caricature. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9: 54:2-21; 138:3-10)].
20
102. Memo from Dr. DFJ00248 Disputed: for sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
21 Ragland to Jadwin, dated to DMF 94 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
1/21/04, that presentations herein.
22 must be concise and that the
last Blood Usage Report-52 Despite the fact that Ragland was chair of the quality
23 slides-will not fit in the committee and the fact that, as he himself testified, he
allotted time. knew from the beginning that the FNA issue was a patient
24 care issue, he refused to let Plaintiff address it at the
Quality Management meeting. He retaliated against
25 Plaintiff by dismissing the issue as “battling doctors” and
attacking Plaintiff for his “poor” communication skills.
26
27
28

1 103. Memo from Dr. DFJ00381 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
McBride to Jadwin, dated to DMF 104 and DMF 106 infra.
2 5/9/05, requesting that the
time required for the Disputed: McBride stated that the purpose of the memos
3 pathology presentation at the from the Cancer Committee to Plaintiff was NOT to
oncology conference be kept reprimand Plaintiff or anybody in particular. [Lee Opp.
4 to a minimum. Decl., Exh. 29 (McBride Depo. at 28:3-8)].
5 104. Instructions for the Patel Disputed: The document specifies NO time limits for the
Cancer Conference Depo., pathology portion of the presentation, contrary to
6 presenters 1) the presentation 12/6/07, Defendants’ claims and consistent with what Plaintiff
is to contain less than 10 Exhibit 25 claims. Defendants fundamentally misconstrue this
7 slides, 2) length not to document. The guidelines are directed to the RESIDENT
exceed 20 minutes for who will be introducing the case, giving the background
8 comprehensive background and going through preliminary slides at the beginning, as
and overview of testing, and evidenced by the instruction “You will be required to
9 3) all physicians involved in meet with both the Pathologist and Radiologist to discuss
the case being presented the case to be presented at least 4 working days before the
10 must be notified beforehand. conference. It is also your responsibility to notify ALL
physicians involved in the case you are presenting.” It is
11 NOT directed at the pathologists.
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 28 (Conference Guidelines at Bates
12 0000804); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 29 (McBride Depo. at
362-16)].
13
105. Pathology Dept.’s DFJ00508 Disputed: See Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 104 supra and
14 oncology conference -574 DMF 106 infra, which are incorporated in their entirety
presentation--67 slides-by herein.
15 Jadwin, reviewing
gynecology cases and alleged
16 errors in diagnosis by
University of Southern
17 California (hereinafter
referred to as USC).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 106. Memo from the Cancer DFJ00578 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
Committee (Drs. Patel, to DMF 104 supra, which is incorporated in its entirety
2 Johnson, and McBride) to herein.
3 insisting that his presentation McBride testified that: 1) McBride was the timekeeper
take no more than 5 minutes and there was no one better positioned to keep track of the
4 per patient case. timing of events at the October Conference [Id. at 32:2-5;
33:19-22]; 2) Plaintiff and the resident presenter together
5 spoke at the October Conference for a total of 20 minutes,
during which the resident typically spoke for “roughly” 5
6 minutes [Id. at 37:18-21; 39:10-20]; hence, Plaintiff’s
presentation only took 15 minutes max; 3) the total
7 conference time was typically 1 hour [Id. at 15:16-19]; 4)
he did not disagree with Plaintiff when Plaintiff informed
8 him that the director of a preeminent cancer center had
stated that it is not reasonable to limit the time of the
9 pathology presentation, that the “pathology department
has presented concise, well organized presentations for
10 years”, that Plaintiff’s October Conference presentation
detailed “problems encountered with this patient’s care
11 and hopefully improve general awareness about important
KMC patient care issues”, that “other oncology
12 conferences have run over without incident and most
other conferences throughout [KMC] run over all of the
13 time”, etc. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 29 (McBride Depo. at
54:24-55:16; 57:7-8); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 30 (Jadwin
14 letter to McBride of 10/19/05 re October Conference at
DFJ00591)]; 5) “I was not unhappy with [Plaintiff’s
15 October Conference] presentation. He had a lot of good
material to present.” [Id. at 46:11-14)]; 6) He had
16 moderated “many, many” Cancer Conferences [Id. at
37:2-6)], 7) the first presentation on the morning of the
17 October Conference ran over by about 5 minutes without
incident and that “it was not uncommon” for time
18 overruns to occur at Cancer Conferences. [Id. at 49:17-
25)]; 8) he could not recall any other physician receiving
19 a letter of reprimand for running over time at a Cancer
Conference; 9) he had moderated “many, many” Cancer
20 Conferences [Id. at 50:1-7)]; 10) Harris had forced him to
write a letter of dissatisfaction against Plaintiff at the end
21 of the October Conference [Id. at 29:11-13]; 11) he didn’t
want to do write the letter [Id. at 30:1-8]; 12) that he was
22 not upset with Plaintiff for going over time [Id. 33:19-
34:6].
23
Plaintiff’s expert, Lawrence Weiss, Chair of Pathology at
24 City of Hope in Duarte, CA, stated re Plaintiff’s time
overrun: “Customarily, if an Oncology Conference runs
25 over the time scheduled, those attendees who need to
leave to perform other duties simply do so…. In all my
26 years of experience, I have never seen a physician’s
privileges threatened for such an insignificant and
27 patently unwarranted reason.” [Decl. of Lawrence Weiss
(“Weiss Decl.”) at pp. 4-5.
28

1 107. Anonymous (redacted) DFJ00580 See evidentiary objections.

memo (author-Dr. Taylor) of
2 complaint about Jadwin’s Disputed: See Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 104 supra and
oncology presentation, dated DMF 106 infra, which are incorporated in their entirety
3 10/12/05. Some quotes: “ .. herein.
inappropriate to bring
4 political/personal battles to
an educational forum filled
5 with residents and students,”
and “ .. inappropriate to
6 ‘bash’ reputable institutions
like USC and Stanford,” and
7 “ ..made [Jadwin] look like a
conceited, pompous
8 buffoon.”
9 108. Dr. Royce Johnson also Harris See evidentiary objections.

voiced a complaint. Depo.,
10 8/13/08, Disputed: See Plaintiff’s Response to DMF 104 supra and
pgs. DMF 106 infra, which are incorporated in their entirety
11 126:8- herein.
127: 19
12
109. Oncology Conference Exhibit Disputed: in those same evaluations, Plaintiff’s
13 Performance Evaluations of 190 presentation received high praise from the majority of
10/12/05 where criticisms of attendees. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 31 (October Conference
14 Jadwin’s presentation are Feedback at 0000517, 520, 521 (“V. good speaker,
written in the comments confident & clear”; “V. important topic for women’s
15 section on the following health”), 523, 524, 527, 528, 531 (“Great”), 534, 537,
Bates-stamped pages: 538, 539, 542, 544, 545.
16 0000516,522,526,536, and
548.
17
110. Dr. Ragland was not Ragland Disputed: Plaintiff never said that “the only important
18 present at the October Depo., information on that [October Conference] case was his.”.
Oncology Conference so his 8/22/08, [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 7].
19 testimony was limited to the pgs. 106:
comments he heard Jadwin 18-109: See evidentiary objections.
20 make regarding the 14 and
conference (which is an 156:14-25
21 admission against interest).
Dr. Ragland said that
22 Jadwin’s excuse for
monopolizing the oncology
23 conference was that “the only
important information on that
24 case was his.”
25
26
27
28

1 111. Dr. Abraham testified Abraham See evidentiary objections.

that Jadwin went on much Depo.,
2 longer than a normal 8/18/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses
pathology presentation and pgs. 14: to DMF 94, 104, 106, 113.
3 she was embarrassed for him 10-21: 17
and by some of the things and
4 that he said. Her overall 131:5-
feeling was one of 133:23
5 discomfort. She definitely and
felt that his criticisms of 135:24-
6 outside consultants were 138:22
inappropriate and further
7 evidence of his arrogance
because the issue was not
8 one of who was- right-and-
who-was-wrong but of the
9 actual sample and how it
could be read. Jadwin’s
10 position that it is a patient
care issue presumes that
11 Jadwin is right and Dr. Roy
and the outside pathologist
12 are wrong.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 112. Dr. Dutt believed that Dutt See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin retaliated against Dr. Depo.,
2 Roy by verbally attacking 8/20/08, Disputed: Dutt insisted that the Paycut Amendment to
him, angrily, at the October pgs.292:2 Plaintiff’s contract limit his medical leave allowance upon
3 oncology conference. 5-293:20 his return to work in retaliation for his prior medical
leaves. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 48 (Dutt email to Barnest
4 of 9/14/06 at 0000830)].
5 Then-CEO Culberson testified that Dutt, Plaintiff’s

former subordinate who had been elevated to replace him
6 as Acting Chair of Pathology, could be biased against
Plaintiff. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11 (Culberson Depo. at
7 163:12-16)].
8 Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Lawrence Weiss, stated in his

report: “Dr. Dutt’s so-called peer review of Dr. Jadwin
9 was not only unwarranted, but was also non-compliant
with customary and KMC’s procedures (that would
10 require that reviewer comments be returned to the original
pathologist and the original pathologist be given an
11 opportunity to review the slides, make an assessment and
acknowledge the receipt of the comments by the original
12 pathologists), and not designed to achieve any legitimate
peer review purpose that I can discern.” [Weiss Decl.,
13 Exh. 1 at p. 8-9].
14 According to Culberson, sometime between August 2006

and May 2007, Dutt investigated Plaintiff for competency
15 errors and reported to him that “There were several
matters that it was clear the outside consultant did not
16 believe that the way matters were handled [by Plaintiff]
was proper.” [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11 (Culberson Depo.
17 at 165:9-20; 166:6-20)]. Dutt confirmed submitting such
complaints to then-CMO Harris about Plaintiff’s
18 competence in the middle of November 2006. [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 47 (Dutt Depo. at 289:5-21; 289:25-290:7)].
19 Dutt also confirmed that he told Plaintiff he was
subjecting his report to outside peer review, then locked
20 up the slides at issue and denied Plaintiff access to them.
[Id. at 35:5-36:15; 38:4-25; 297:14-21; 298:3-13].
21
Harris testified at his depo. that “There was no quality
22 concern over [Plaintiff’s] cases prior to October of 2006.”
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 192:7-13); see
23 also Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo at 409:21-
410:3)]. Harris further testified: “I wasn’t even aware
24 that [Plaintiff’] competency was an issue in this case.”
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 25 (Harris Depo at 411:4-20)].
25
Regarding the period after Plaintiff’s return to work as a
26 staff pathologist on 10/4/06, Harris testified that all
complaints about Plaintiff’s competency were directed to
27 him [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo. at 60:14-22)];
and that Defendant County never conducted any peer
28 review in response to any of those complaints. [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo. at 58:4-59:1)].

1 113. Letter from Drs. DFJ00588 See evidentiary objections.

Kercher, Ragland, Abraham
2 and Harris to Jadwin, dated Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses
10/17/05, about Jadwin’s to DMF 94, 101, 104, 106, 126, which are incorporated in
3 October oncology their entirety herein.
presentation. The criticisms
4 of the presentation were 1) it Disputed: The fact that the letter references “personal
exceeded the time allotted to agenda” and “political statement” is, if anything, direct
5 it, 2) Jadwin failed to follow evidence that Defendants were retaliating against Plaintiff
the leader of the conference for blowing the whistle on the fact that the patient whose
6 on brevity, and 3) Jadwin case was being discussed at the October Conference had
used a public forum for a received a hysterectomy based upon outside pathology
7 personal agenda and/or for reports from USC that had been wrongly based upon
making a political statement. incorrectly oriented slides. As Abraham testified, the
8 political point referenced was the errors made by USC in
their pathology report which Plaintiff was highlighting in
9 his October Conference presentation – the very patient
care issue which Plaintiff was raising. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
10 Exh. 27 (Abraham Depo. at 148:2-9)].
114. E-mail from Dr. 0000094 See evidentiary objections.
11 Ragland to Dr. Harris, dated
10/18/05, describing Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses
12 Jadwin’s attitude during the to DMF 104, 106 and 113 supra, which is incorporated in
meeting on 10/17/05. When its entirety herein.
13 handed the evaluations of his
presentation, he would not Disputed: Plaintiff’s recollection of this meeting is
14 look at them. The e-mail entirely opposite to what is described in this email.
states that Jadwin has a “lack Plaintiff recalls: “Dr. Ragland began by saying “So Dr.
15 of communication skills” and Jadwin, Mr. Perfect, here we are again, having problems
fails to “extend basic with your behavior.” He said that he had been selected to
16 courtesy to his colleagues.” deal with this issue. I said I wanted Mr. Bryan present.
Kercher said this has nothing to do with Peter, this is a
17 medical staff issue. Dr. Kercher started yelling at me:
“David if you needed more time, why didn’t you tell Dr.
18 McBride beforehand?” Dr. Ragland read the letter of
reprimand aloud to me, which stated that letters were
19 placed in my file. When I asked to see them, Dr. Harris
said that I could not see them. When I turned to address
20 Dr. Kercher, as the senior person in the room, Dr.
Ragland on two occasions said “Don’t look at him, look at
21 me; I am the person you need to talk to!” and “Noo, don’t
look at [Kercher] look at me. That’s riiight, you don’t
22 need to look at him, you need to look at me.” It was
humiliating. Drs. Kercher and Ragland who were not at
23 the conference, obviously listened to Dr. Harris’s account
only. I was not given an opportunity to speak or
24 otherwise defend myself.”
[Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 8].
25
26
27
28

1 115. Jadwin’s evaluation of DFJ00689 See evidentiary objections.

the 11/9/05 oncology
2 conference (what he filled
out). He complained that it Disputed: Defendants omit Dr. Shertukde’s feedback form
3 ran to 8:38 a.m. and he noted which confirms that “The conference ran to 8:38 am”
he would discuss the overrun [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 32 (Oncology Conference feedback
4 with Dr. McBride. form of Shertukde of 11/9/05 at DFJ00686). The
conference is supposed to end at 8:30 am [Lee Opp. Decl.,
5 Exh. 29 (McBride Depo. at 32:26-33:3)], so this
represents an 8 minute overrun for which no one was
6 reprimanded. In contrast, the October Conference ended
at 8:25 a.m., 5 minutes early. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 29
7 (McBride Depo. at 39:6-9)]. Nevertheless, Plaintiff was
severely reprimanded for an alleged time overrun.
8
116. Memorandum to 0001566- Undisputed that the document says what it says.
9 Supervisor Michael Rubio, 1567
District V, from Peter Bryan, Disputed: This memorandum’s reference to “emotional
10 dated 1/17/06, giving him health” is direct evidence that Bryan knew of Plaintiff’s
background on the problems depression disability and that he was discriminating
11 arising from the October against him on that basis.
oncology conference. Bryan
12 tells of a meeting he had with
Jadwin about a week after
13 the conference in which
Jadwin was extremely angry
14 and making loud, derogatory
comments about various
15 members of the medical
staff. He said he became
16 concerned about Jadwin’s
emotional health. He also
17 said that Jadwin has never
been able to state a resolution
18 to the impasse. Bryan also
says that he will meet again
19 with Jadwin and inform him
of some expectations for
20 future conduct, or he will
consider removing him as the
21 chairman of the pathology
department.
22
23 PCCs
24
25
26
27
28

1 117. PCC issue was a Bryan See evidentiary objections.

difference in professional Depo.,
2 judgment, the process by the 8/14/08, Disputed: PCC issue was NOT a difference in
nursing staff was working for pgs. professional judgment. It was an issue of illegal
3 them, and Jadwin failed to 205:6- noncompliance with H&S § 1602.5 and AABB standards.
work within the institution 206: 25 The DHS later concluded that KMC was not complying
4 and committee structure. (Exhibit with blood transfusion documentation and reporting
Also, Bryan inferred that 291) procedures. [Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 13 (DHS’s
5 Jadwin had accused Toni Fax to Jadwin of 8/11/08 at E264 on pages 2-4 (finding
Smith of ethical lapses which almost 50% noncompliance at KMC)]. The fact that
6 is an example of “a pattern of Bryan ignored and belittled Plaintiff’s many reports of
inability to establish an PCC noncompliance as a “difference in professional
7 effective means of dialogue.” judgment” and indication of Plaintiff’s deficient
leadership style and later caused Plaintiff to be demoted is
8 further evidence of Bryan’s hostility to whistleblowers.
For Bryan, “dysfunction” is nothing more than a code
9 word for whistleblowing. Legal noncompliance becomes
an issue of ethics when people choose to disregard it
10 instead of fixing the problem. Bryan and Smith are guilty
of ethical lapses in their betrayal of the public trust.
11
Even as late as 8/14/08, Bryan still didn’t get it. He
12 continued to minimize the PCC issue as an “inability of
two professionals to sit down and have a constructive
13 dialogue, to come up with a satisfactory solution.” [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 3 (Bryan Depo at 230:25-231:5)]. He
14 took no responsibility whatsoever as then-CEO for failing
to step in and break the deadlock between Nurse
15 Executive Smith and Plaintiff, nor for failing to discipline
Smith for her incompetence or willful resistance to
16 bringing KMC into compliance with H&S 1602.5. He is
under the delusion that all responsibility for enforcing
17 compliance with regulations at KMC rested with Plaintiff
alone, and not anyone else, including him and Smith.
18
Bryan was far from impartial and demonstrated a clear
19 bias against Plaintiff over time. [Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
Exh. 15 (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of 6/14/06 at DFJ1181);
20 Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 16 (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
6/26/06 at DFJ1346); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 17 (JCC
21 Minutes of 7/1/06 at 0009821); Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265),
Exh. 1 (Jadwin email to Bryan of 2/28/05 at DFJ355); Lee
22 Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 13 (Ragland Depo at
332:14-21); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 8 (Bryan email to
23 Harris of 11/8/05 at 0000503); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh.
11 (Ragland email to Bryan of 2/23/06 at 0000507)].
24
Joseph Mansour, a doctor in OB-GYN, similarly testified
25 that when he blew the whistle to Bryan on improper
publicly-funded malpractice coverage of KMC doctors’
26 activities outside of KMC, Bryan discounted / disagreed
with the concern. Mansour testified that the Kern County
27 Board of Supervisors became aware of the problem and
later canceled all such improper policies. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
28 Exh. 33 (Mansour Depo. at 98:18-99:12; 104:11-25)].

1 118. E-mail to Toni Smith, DFJ00408 Undisputed.

R.N. from Jadwin, dated -409
2 5/20/05, inquiring after
audits of the nursing
3 department of which only
one was received and arguing
4 that PCCs should be sent to
the blood bank when
5 complete.
6 119. E-mail to Toni Smith DFJ02499 Undisputed.

from Jadwin, dated 5/20/05,
7 recounting Jadwin’s
telephone conversation with
8 Holly Rapp, AABB
Accreditation Director.
9
120. Exchange of e-mails 0000421- Undisputed.
10 between Toni Smith and 424
Jadwin, dated between
11 6/15/05 and 6/28/05, about
the PCC issues. In 0000423,
12 Jadwin states that a PCC
must not be signed until the
13 time of the infusion, or KMC
is not meeting AABB
14 accreditation standards.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 121. Typed notes, dated 0000572 See evidentiary objections.

1/10/06, of interviews with
2 various people and Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
institutions re: sending the to DMF 117.
3 Product Chart Copies (PCCs)
back to the blood bank
4 (pathology). The author
unknown- interviewed
5 Michelle Burris who said
there is no reason to return
6 PCCs to pathology. The
author interviewed Ann
7 Schadler, UCLA Blood Bank
Director, who said their
8 PCCs are in the patient’s
record only, not the blood
9 bank. The author interviewed
Julia, UCSD Blood Bank,
10 who said there was no reason
to return the form to the
11 blood bank. The author also
interviewed Dr. Wu and Jay,
12 supervisor of Mercy Lab and
Blood Bank, who said that
13 the PCC goes in the patient’s
record and there is no reason
14 to return the PCC to the
blood bank.
15
122. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00784 Undisputed.
16 from Jadwin, dated 4/10/06,
about several issues but he Seven days later, on 4/17/06, Bryan threatened Plaintiff
17 brings up non-compliance with termination. This is compelling evidence of
with state regulations, whistleblower retaliation. “Dysfunction” for Bryan is
18 JCAHO, and AABB on the nothing more than a code word for whistleblowing.
issues of the PCCs. [Lee Decl., Exh. 12 (Bryan Memo to Jadwin of 4/17/06 re
19 Termination Threat at DFJ000795)].
20 123. Notes of meeting dated DFJ00788 See evidentiary objections.

4/14/06 with Peter Bryan,
21 Karen Barnes and Jadwin on Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
4/13/06. There is no problem to DMF 117.
22 with the PCCs because 5
charts were reviewed (and
23 approved) by JCAHO.
24 124. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00793 Undisputed.

from Jadwin, dated 4/17/06,
25 claiming that the JCAHO
review was too small of a
26 sample and KMC was in
noncompliance on their
27 handling of the PCCs and
there was a need for action.
28

1 a) Bryan criticizes Jadwin’s Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
57 memos to Toni Smith, Depo., to DMF 117.
2 R.N. as a “way of flooding 8/14/08,
the system and seeing what pg. 226: See evidentiary objections.
3 sticks and what doesn’t.” 10-16
4 125. Memo to Peter Bryan 0000401- Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
from Toni Smith, dated 403 to DMF 117.
5 4/17/06, responding to
Jadwin’s e-mail to Peter See evidentiary objections.
6 Bryan of 4/17/06,
disagreeing with Jadwin’s
7 characterization of the PCC
situation and stating that
8 Jadwin’s proposals on this
issue were strategies that
9 have previously been
rejected by KMC.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 126. Harris had complaints Harris See evidentiary objections.

about Jadwin’s handling of Depo.,
2 the PCC issue-Jadwin was 8/13/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
demanding, inflexible, pgs. to DMF 112 and 117.
3 unreasonable in wanting the 268:8-23
originals, impatient. Harris’s view of Plaintiff’s reports of non-compliant
4 PCCs is further evidence of Harris’s hostility to
whistleblowers like Plaintiff.
5
Harris later testified: “I Harris’s retaliatory animus is well-documented. Harris
6 wasn’t even aware that had coordinated with a gynecologist, William Roy, in
[Plaintiff’] competency was 2005 to 2006 to conduct retaliatory peer review of
7 an issue in this case.” [Lee Plaintiff’s work. As Plaintiff’s expert Dr. Lawrence Weiss
Opp. Decl., Exh. 25 (Harris noted in his report: “However, contrary to customary
8 Depo at 411:4-20)]. practice, the peer review was not opened in a timely
fashion, occurring more than six months after Dr. Roy
9 provided a list of [Plaintiff’s] cases to Dr. Harris (Bates
No. 434-438), and more than a year after Dr. Jadwin
10 challenged Dr. Roy to provide the cases for which he
questioned Dr. Jadwin’s abilities in a letter copied to the
11 hospital administration and the medical staff leadership
(Bates No. 1614). If the interests of patient care were to
12 be served, the cases would have been provided and the
review performed promptly.”[Weiss Decl., Exh. 1 at p. 7].
13 Weiss further noted: “It is very clear that these peer
review activities were not conducted as an educational
14 tool or as a method of risk reduction, as is customary.
Peer review needs to be conducted confidentially--opaque
15 to the world outside of the Medical Staff; but it is not
conducted like the inquisition, in which one does not
16 know who the accuser is or what the allegations are. In
my entire career, I have never encountered so much peer
17 review directed at one individual and with so little
return.” [Weiss Decl., Exh. 1 at p. 6-7].
18
Plaintiff is not the only whistleblower to whom Harris
19 was hostile. Joseph Mansour, a doctor in the OB-GYN
department, testified that when he blew the whistle to
20 Harris on improper publicly-funded malpractice coverage
of KMC doctors’ activities outside of KMC, Harris said
21 he was aware of the problem and thought it was fine, then
suggested to Mansour “why don’t you go use this
22 malpractice coverage and work at hospitals and get free
coverage [yourself]”. Mansour view of Harris’s unethical
23 suggestion was that “I thought it was outrageous to do
that”. Mansour then testified that the Kern County Board
24 of Supervisors became aware of the problem and later
canceled all such improper policies. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
25 33 (Mansour Depo. at 100:14-25; 101:8-21; 104:11-25)].
The conversation between Harris and Mansour is
26 memorialized in one of Harris’s memos to file. [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 34 (Harris memo to file of 5/10/06 at
27 0027083-27084)].
28

1 127. Toni Smith, R.N. Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
explained that the reason that Depo., Response to DMF 117.
2 some PCCs looked like they 8/19/08,
were not complete is that the pgs. 59:4- Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
3 PCC form was actually in 60: 13 responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
duplicate and the nurses were compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
4 not consistent about writing Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
on only one copy and speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
5 throwing the blank copy might run afoul of a regulation.
away.
128. Toni Smith said that Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
7 Jadwin was never interested Depo., Response to DMF 117.
or willing to listen to her 8/19/08,
8 ideas. When asked what pg. 65:2- Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
Jadwin’s physical demeanor 13 and 74: responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
9 was like in these 12-22 compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
conversations in which he Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
10 was allegedly uncooperative, speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
she said “He was obviously might run afoul of a regulation.
11 frustrated, obviously not
going to change his mind, See evidentiary objections.
12 obviously not willing to
listen to anything. I presented
13 cases from other hospitals,
some of the lab directors that
14 I hold in high esteem. [He]
had no interest in any of
15 that.”
16 129. Jadwin’s idea to have Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
the PCCs stored in his Depo., Response to DMF 117.
17 department may violate 8/19/08,
California law, Title 22, by pg. 71:2- Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
18 fragmenting the medical 21 responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
record. Jadwin’s idea was compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
19 opposed by Toni Smith, Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
R.N., the medical records speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
20 department, and the medical might run afoul of a regulation.
records committee which
21 ultimately determines what See evidentiary objections.
the contents of a medical
22 record will be.
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 130. Toni Smith, R.N. Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
offered a succinct description Depo., Response to DMF 117.
2 of her conversations with 8/19/08,p
Jadwin on the issue of PCCs. gs.72:19- Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
3 The conversations were not 73:17 responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
professional conversations- compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
4 ”It just was a dead-end Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
conversation. I mean, he had speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
5 his mind made up that those might run afoul of a regulation.
things-he had never seen an
6 organization where they See evidentiary objections.
hadn’t been stored in the lab.
7 I had indicated-I indicated to
him that I had never seen an
8 organization where they were
stored in the lab. And I
9 questioned him as to how he
was going to be able to locate
10 that if we needed it for
patient care purposes. I think
11 he said he was going to store
them in binders or in
12 notebooks or boxes or
something. You know, it was
13 See evidentiary objections:
Irrelevantas far as I was
14 concerned. I felt that it was
very important to have that
15 information-one, we needed
to know that the patient had-
16 had received the blood. We
needed the vital sign
17 information during the blood
transfusion part, which
18 would leave a huge gaping
hole in patient information if
19 that was stored somewhere in
the lab.”
20
131. Toni Smith considered Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
21 Jadwin’s conduct at the MEC Depo., Response to DMF 117.
meeting as uncooperative, 8/19/08,
22 refusal to consider other pg. 77:9- Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
points of view or 20 responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
23 suggestions, etc. compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
24 speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
might run afoul of a regulation.
25
26
27
28

1 132. Jadwin’s charges of Smith D Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s
being out of compliance with Depo., Response to DMF 117.
2 regulatory agencies were 8/19/08,
unfounded, and regulatory pgs. 84: Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no
3 agencies found no jeopardy 11-85:7 responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
of KMC’s level of compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
4 compliance. Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
5 might run afoul of a regulation.
6 Disputed: At her deposition, Smith claimed not to recall

whether DHS found KMC blood transfusion
7 documentation procedures to be noncompliant, even
though she is Nurse Executive, in charge of nurses who
8 fill out PCCs at time of transfusion. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
35 at 82:24-83:4)]. One month earlier, DHS had issued
9 their report finding PCC deficiencies to KMC. [Jadwin
Decl., Exh. 13 (DHS Report of 7/22/08)]. Smith is either
10 incompetent or lying.
11 Disputed: Smith later testified that another KMC audit of

PCCs confirmed Plaintiff’s finding of “less than 100
12 percent compliance” and that even regarding one percent
or two percent incomplete or inaccurate PCCs, “I would
13 never say that was okay”. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 35 at
85:18-20; 87:17-23;
14
15
In General Treatment of
16 Other Staff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 133. Dr. Abraham gradually Abraham Disputed: Mr. Bryan (Former CEO), Dr. Abraham
had fewer and fewer Depo., (Former President of Medical Staff), Dr. Ragland (Former
2 interactions with Jadwin 8/18/08, President of Medical Staff), Dr. Kercher (Former
because his attitude was pgs. 49: President of Medical Staff), Ms. Smith (Nurse Executive),
3 pompous and arrogant. Since 16-52:9 and Dr. Dutt (Acting Chair of Pathology and Plaintiff’s
the conversations with and former subordinate) were in the minority of people who
4 Jadwin were not cordial, it 75:22-76: were detractors of Plaintiff.
negatively affected patient 19
5 care. She didn’t discuss The vast majority of people – Dr. Martin (Surgery Chair),
Jadwin’s attitude with other Ms. Gallegos (Histotech), Dr. Kolb (Former CMO), Ms.
6 doctors because she thought Lindsey (Secretary), Ms. Lopez (Clerk), Dr. Mansour
his attitude was evident to (OB-GYN physician), Mr. Martinez (Former Lab
7 everyone. Manager), Dr. McBride (Former Cancer Conference
Director), Dr. Naderi (Radiology Chair), Dr. Patel
8 (Cancer Committee Chair), Ms. Ramos (Secretary), Dr.
Taylor (Surgeon), Dr. Wrobel (Neurosurgeon), and Dr.
9 Yoo (Psychiatry Chair) – liked Plaintiff, reported having
no or few bad interactions with him and found he
10 generally conducted himself professionally.
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 36 (Martin Depo. at 34:24-35:2;
11 91:14-19); Exh. 37 (Gallegos Depo. at 23:19-25; 24:17;
28:7-9); Exh. 38 (Kolb Depo. at 17:12-16; 19:17-21:18;
12 22:19-23:1; 75:11-76:10; 62:10-19; 36:21-19); Exh. 39
(Lindsey Depo. at 8:23-10:3); Exh. 40 (Lopez Depo. at
13 8:19-20; 10:4-8; 11:3-8; 12:4-19; 15:20-16:13); Exh. 33
(Mansour Depo. at 10:2-4); Exh. 8 (Martinez Depo. at
14 121:2-7; 122:8-123:1; 124:18-21; 127:18-21; 130:12-16;
133:17-22); Exh. 29 (McBride Depo. at 91:3-92:24);
15 Exh. 41 (Naderi Depo. at 63:18-64:19; 75:17-22); Exh. 42
(Patel Depo. at 16:2-6; 16:17-19); Exh. 43 (Ramos Depo.
16 at 47:9-48:9; 48:22-49:2; 49:10-12); Exh. 44 (Taylor
Depo. at 88:23-89:25; 90:16-90); Exh. 45 (Wrobel Depo.
17 at 12:15-13:18); Exh. 46 (Yoo Depo. at 10:20-11:23;
12:4-6; 12:22-24).
18
Even Dr. Kercher testified “I don’t ever remember
19 [Plaintiff] specifically treating me in a sassy, mean,
horrible way” and “he was always nice to me”. [Lee Opp.
20 Decl., Exh. 14 (Kercher PMK Depo at 32:9-13; 32:25-
33:3)].
21
Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
22 to DMF 94.

134. Dr. Abraham testified Abraham Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
24 that many or most physicians Depo., to DMF DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. The
reported difficulties in 8/18/08, group of people alleging difficulties with Plaintiff were in
25 getting along with Jadwin. pgs. the minority of people retaliating against Plaintiff - Bryan,
185:7- Harris, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, Smith and Dutt.
26 187:9
27
28

1 135. Jadwin’s Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
communication style was, to Depo., to DMF DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Bryan,
2 some people, offensive and 8/14/08, Harris, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, Smith and Dutt were
abrasive, and he had a hard pgs. 90:4- intolerant in accepting the patient care and noncompliance
3 time accepting differing 92:2 issues Plaintiff was blowing the whistle on.
opinions from others.
4 Disputed: This is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
5 $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance 3 years
6 into his tenure. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of
Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
7
8 136. “Compromise” was not Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
in Jadwin’s vocabulary. It is Depo., to DMF DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Bryan,
9 not enough to be right; a 8114/08, Harris, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, Smith and Dutt were
department chair must pgs. 100: just as intolerant in accepting the patient care and
10 exercise judgment on how to 12102: 1 noncompliance issues Plaintiff was blowing the whistle
deal with others. on.
11
Disputed: This is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
13 County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance 3 years
into his tenure. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of
14 Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).

137. Jadwin said Dr. Ragland Bryan See evidentiary objections.
16 was not qualified to be a staff Depo.,
officer, and he called Dr. 8/14/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
17 Harris an idiot on several pgs. to DMF DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Bryan,
occasions. 107:16- Harris, Kercher, Ragland, Abraham, Smith and Dutt
18 109:11 engaged in retaliatory attacks against Plaintiff which were
far more severe and coordinated.
19 138. E-mail to Bryan from Bryan See evidentiary objections.
Jadwin asking Bryan what he Depo.,
20 (Bryan) has done on the 8/14/08, Disputed: Plaintiff had discovered Elsa Ang, a former
cytotech issue. Bryan said pgs. 171: pathologist, had made failed to diagnose florid cancer in
21 that he was not the 17-173:11 numerous prostate slides, raising a serious patient care
appropriate person to resolve (Exhibit issue. Plaintiff reported the issue to Bryan and Bryan’s
22 this. Jadwin should be 271) response was, true to form, to disregard it. Only later did
directing this to the Bryan finally decide to ask Harris to look into the issue.
23 chairman; Bryan only gets This is further evidence of Bryan’s hostility to
involved if approval is whistleblowers. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 49 (Jadwin email
24 necessary. to Bryan of 10/17/05 at DFJ00589); Exh. 50 (Jadwin
email to Bryan of 3/2/06 at DFJ00750); Exh. 51 (Emails
25 between Bryan and Plaintiff of 4/21/06 at DFJ00799)].
26
27
28

1 139. Bryan recalls private Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
conversations with Jadwin Depo., to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Bryan did not
2 where Jadwin challenged 8/14/08, display similar concern when Plaintiff’s FNA competency
Toni Smith’s competency as pg. 230: was being attacked in retaliatory fashion by Ragland,
3 chief nursing officer. 10-15 Abraham, Kercher, Harris, Smith, and others.
4 Disputed: Even as of 8/19/08, Smith took no

responsibility for her role in failing to get KMC into
5 compliance with H&S 1602.5. Instead, she focuses on
Plaintiff’s alleged dysfunction and unsubstantiated
6 speculation that one of Plaintiff’s proposed solutions
might run afoul of a regulation. Smith is either
7 incompetent or retaliating.
8 140. Jadwin was so obsessed Harris Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
with personnel actions or Depo., to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Harris leveled
9 inactions that he was 8/13/08, far more severe charges of assault, intimidation and
distracted in his duties. “ .. pgs. 171: violence at Mansour, yet Mansour was not subjected to
10 his behavior threatened a 16174: 8 administrative leave or nonrenewal as Plaintiff was.
healthy, productive work pg. 173:9-
11 environment at the hospital.” 10 Disputed: This is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
12 $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
14
15 141. In most cases, doctors Harris Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
know how to calm each other Depo., to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Harris leveled
16 down and act professionally 8/13/08,p far more severe charges of assault, intimidation and
and collegially. Jadwin was gs.212:16 violence at Mansour, yet Mansour was not subjected to
17 “unusual.” Jadwin was 218: 11 administrative leave or nonrenewal as Plaintiff was.
unable to interact collegially pg.215:18
18 and professionally to create a -21 Disputed: This is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
healthy, collaborative increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
19 working environment. $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
21
22 142. Jadwin denied referring Jadwin See evidentiary objections.
to Dr. Epstein as cavalier. Depo.,
23 Jadwin said that on another 3/12/08,9 Disputed: Pathologists disagree with outside experts all
matter, at another time, he 01:12- the time. That was the basis for the policy of internal
24 said that Dr. Epstein’s 903: 1 pathology review of outside expert reports which Plaintiff
diagnoses were a little was espousing at the October Conference. Dr. Patel, Chair
25 cavalier. of the Cancer Committee, enthusiastically supported
Plaintiff’s advocacy. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 42 (Patel
26 Depo. at 38:3-7; 38:20-22; 41:11-21)].
27
28

1 143. Dr. Ragland testified Ragland Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
that Jadwin acted Depo., to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Ragland’s
2 inappropriately in several 8/22/08, retaliatory animus against Plaintiff is so extreme, it
instances. pg. 12:8- approaches hatred.
3 23
Disputed: This is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
5 County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance 3 years
into his tenure. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of
6 Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
a) The first incident was pg.16:15- See evidentiary objections.
7 when Jadwin, in a meeting, 16.
said Dr. Ragland was Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
8 incompetent and shouldn’t be to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Ragland had no
the medical staff president. hesitation launching more severe retaliatory attacks
9 against Plaintiff. Ragland’s retaliatory animus against
Plaintiff is so extreme, it approaches hatred.
10 b) The second incident was pgs. See evidentiary objections.
Jadwin taking over the blood 59:21-60:
11 usage committee and not 17 and Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
letting any other physicians 86:5-25 to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Ragland
12 on it. Jadwin sent Dr. spoliated the emails referenced here and testified he was
Ragland an e-mail stating never contacted by anybody with instructions not to
13 that he thought having other spoliate or to produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
physicians on the committee discovery requests.
14 was a waste of time because
“they will all rubber stamp
15 it.” Dr. Ragland interpreted
this to mean that Jadwin did
16 not think that anyone else at
KMC had the competence or
17 experience to sit on the
committee.
18
c) The third incident was pg. 94:16 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
19 Jadwin’s fighting with the 95:15 and to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. The
radiologists and calling them 155:2- radiologists, Ragland and Abraham numerous times aired
20 incompetent. According to 156:13 their suspicions that the Pathology department was
Dr. Ragland, Jadwin was incompetent. According to Abraham, that is what led up
21 wrong because the to the retention of David Lieu to conduct an outside
procedurist (the radiologist) review.
22 should chose the equipment
he uses (gauge of needle is See evidentiary objections.
23 an example) as that is who is
performing the task.
24
d) The fourth incident was pgs. 106: See evidentiary objections.
25 Jadwin hijacking the 18-109:
presentation at the October 14 and Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
26 2005 oncology conference. 156:14-25 to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Ragland was
not even in attendance.
27
28

1 144. Dr. Ragland observed Ragland See evidentiary objections.

an incident involving Dr. Depo.,
2 Shertukde wherein Jadwin 8/22/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
intimidated her into giving pg. 110:7- to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176.
3 the answer he wanted and 17
then he dismissed her from Disputed: Shertukde never submitted a single complaint
4 the room. against Plaintiff because “there wasn’t any reason for me
to submit any complaint”. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 52
5 (Shertukde depo. at 25:1-9)].
145. Watson describes how Watson See evidentiary objections.
6 Jadwin’s disruptive Depo.,
misconduct was discussed at 8/25/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
7 several JCC meetings. pg. 13:3- to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. These accounts
16 were being provided by Bryan who had retaliatory animus
8 against Plaintiff. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson Depo.
at 13:8-16)].
9
Watson testified he has never even met Plaintiff, much
10 less heard Plaintiff’s side of the story.[Id. at 10:5-13].
146. Watson testified to his Watson See evidentiary objections.
11 impression of Jadwin’s Depo.,
involvement with KMC 8/25/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
12 management regarding pg. 32:6-1 to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176.
whether to remove him as 0
13 chair, etc. He felt that Peter Watson testified he has never even met Plaintiff, much
Bryan had made a lot of less heard Plaintiff’s side of the story. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
14 effort to engage Jadwin but Exh. 10 (Watson Depo. at 10:5-13)].
that Jadwin was
15 unresponsive.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 147. Letter to Dr. Ko1b from DFJ00243 See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin, dated 11/22/03, -245
2 complaining about the See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing
situation at KMC. Jadwin Defendants’ liability under any of Plaintiff’s counts. It
3 asserted the following: 1) predates the October Conference of 12/16/05 by several
offense at Dr. Kolb’s years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03, Defendant County
4 counseling of Jadwin that his increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base salary from
leadership style needs to be $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that Defendant
5 kinder and gentler; 2) distress County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s performance just one
at the criticisms he received month after this letter and 3 years into Plaintiff’s tenure.
6 from Drs. Ragland and [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21 (Change of Employee Status of
Abraham at a Wednesday 12/26/03 at Bates DFJ00247).
7 meeting; 3) blame for the
schism between pathology Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
8 and radiology over FNA was to DMF 133.
on the radiologists; 4)
9 personally unaware of any
inappropriate interpersonal
10 relations involving himself;
5) hoped to be recognized by
11 others at KMC as one of the
best physicians and directors
12 there; and 6) any complaints
about him were
13 “irresponsible attempts by a
few inadequate individuals.”
14
148. E-mail to Dr. Kercher DFJ00316 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
15 from Jadwin, dated 2/1/05, to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Plaintiff had
requesting Dr. Abraham be grounds for this concern. Even after Dr. Lieu reviewed
16 removed from the FNA 200 of Plaintiff’s cases and issued a report exonerating
Committee because she Plaintiff, Abraham testified at her deposition that she still
17 wasn’t (by implication) harbored suspicions about Plaintiff’s competence
honest, objective or afterwards. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 27 (Abraham Depo. at
18 impartial. 56:16-22)].
19 149. E-mail from Dr. DFJ00317 See evidentiary objections.

Kercher to Jadwin, dated
20 2/1/05, telling Jadwin that he Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
was not acting like a team to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Kercher did not
21 member. lift a finger to address the numerous patient care and
noncompliance concerns Plaintiff was reporting to him,
22 showing his hostility to whistleblowers.
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 150. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00319 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
from Jadwin, dated 2/2/05, -320 to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Plaintiff
2 listing his suggestions for requested his name be cleared of the radiologists’
improvement on the FNA accusations of incompetence after Dr. Lieu’s outside
3 issue. Jadwin also states that report exonerated him. That never happened. As
the radiology department was Abraham’s testimony showed, even to this day, Plaintiff’s
4 “substantially at fault” for the competence remains in question. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 27
conflict between the (Abraham Depo. at 56:16-22)].
5 departments. He requested a
formal apology from the
6 radiology department to
himself and the pathology
7 department. He also
requested (in bold lettering) a
8 public announcement at the
next MEC meeting that there
9 are no quality issues
involving the pathology
10 department and Drs. Amin,
Abraham, Munoz and Naderi
11 should be forced to stand at
the podium during the
12 announcement.
13 151. Exchange of e-mails DFJ00353 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
between Dr. Ragland and -354 to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176.
14 Jadwin, dated 2/25/05, in
which Jadwin complains Ragland admitted in depo that the FNA concerns Plaintiff
15 about some comments made had raised were not just a communication issue but a valid
by the radiologists at the “patient care issue” and that he had always known that
16 February QM meeting and even from the beginning. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9
informing Dr. Ragland to be (Ragland Depo. at 361:3-18)]. Yet here he is minimizing
17 prepared for Jadwin to the issue as “battling doctors” in retaliatory fashion.
request him to call for
18 supporting documentation
from radiology or announce
19 that the previous comments
were unsupported. Dr.
20 Ragland shot back his
displeasure at the continuing
21 conflict between radiology
and pathology, and stated
22 that his committee will not
become a battleground for
23 this conflict.
24
25
26
27
28

1 152. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00355 Disputed: Plaintiff was making a confidential report of
and Dr. Kercher from genuine concern regarding Ragland to Bryan and Kercher.
2 Jadwin, dated 2/28/05, He expected it to be kept confidential. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
forwarding Dr. Ragland’s e- Exh. 53 (Jadwin Depo. at 618:8-9; 622:21-623:4; 621: 14-
3 mail of 2/25/05 and asserting 17)]. They had a duty to keep the report confidential.
that because of spelling, Instead, the report was leaked to Ragland, leading to
4 grammar, and syntax errors predictable escalation of animosity just prior to the
in it that Dr. Ragland may be October Conference. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
5 an “impaired physician” with Depo. at 332:9-21; 333:11-17; 334:2-8)]. Amazingly,
a “level of intellectual Bryan and Kercher then turned around and chided
6 functioning well below the Plaintiff for not getting along better with Ragland.
high school graduate level”
7 and thought processes that
are “chaotic and almost
8 incoherent.” Jadwin alleges
that Dr. Ragland may have a
9 substance abuse, emotional
and/or cognitive function
10 disorder, and suggests
monitored drug testing and
11 that Dr. Ragland’s patient
care duties be monitored as
12 well.
13 a) Dr. Ragland heard about Ragland See evidentiary objections.

the e-mail although he never Depo.,
14 saw it. He heard that the e- 8/22/08, Disputed:
mail was turned over to Dr. pgs.
15 Yoo, head of psychiatry. He 332:4-
also heard that Jadwin had 337:2
16 contacted the licensing board
about him with this same
17 accusation.
18 b) Letter to Dr. Ragland from [Compare See evidentiary objections.

Jadwin, dated 10/19/05, to
19 apologizing for past wrongs, DFJ00355 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
although he asserts that he above] to DMF 152. Plaintiff testified that he acted out of
20 does not know how Dr. DFJ00592 genuine concern, and he submitted it confidentially. This
Ragland came to dislike him. letter proves nothing.
21 The irony is that Jadwin’s
letter contains many spelling
22 and grammatical mistakes
and a Freudian slip” .. and I
23 have never treated you and
your patients exceptionally
24 well ..”
25
26
27
28

1 153. Letter to Dr. Sergio DFJ00356 See evidentiary objections.

Perticucci from Jadwin, ~357
2 dated 3/3/05, complaining Disputed: As Plaintiff testified, when he approached
about Dr. Perticucci’s Perticucci after sending him the letter, he explained why
3 complaints about the he was upset and Perticucci apologized to him. [Lee Opp.
pathology department. In Decl., Exh. 53 (Jadwin Depo. at 650:13-20)].
4 particular, Jadwin attempted
to assert that an original
5 diagnosis of “atypical
metaplasia” was merely a
6 transcription error because
the diagnosis should have
7 been “atypical hyperplasia.”
Jadwin also called the
8 diagnosis rendered on the
same case by Dr. Felix of use
9 “nebulous.” Jadwin called
Dr. Perticucci dishonest and
10 demanded an apology.
11 154. E-mail to Dr. Kercher DFJ00427 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
from Jadwin, dated 6/7/05, to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Kercher was
12 complaining about Dr. quick to criticize Plaintiff, but looked the other way when
Abraham’s conduct at an Abraham attacked Plaintiff in public.
13 MEC meeting and accusing
her of an “inappropriate
14 personality defect.”
15 155. E-mail to Dr. Kercher DFJ00436 Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
from Jadwin, dated 6/27/05, to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176. Abraham
16 demanding that Dr. Abraham harbored retaliatory animus against Plaintiff for pointing
publicly apologize to Jadwin out that the radiologists were not receptive to addressing
17 at the next MEC meeting. the FNA problem. She testified that she still questions
Plaintiff’s competence to this day, despite all the contrary
18 evidence.
19 156. Letter to Dr. Roy from DFJ00738 See evidentiary objections.

20 demanding apology “meeting Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
my specifications” if alleged to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 176.
21 (pathology department)
deficiencies are not received Roy’s letter of dissatisfaction of 10/13/05 issued to Harris
22 in 14 days. at the October Conference went beyond the scope of the
October Conference and devolved into baseless personal
23 attacks on Plaintiff. [Weiss Decl., Exh. 1 at pp. 7-8]. Dr.
Weiss, Plaintiff’s expert, noted how KMC was quick to
24 upbraid Plaintiff for being slightly critical of anyone, but
refused to discipline anyone who launched attacks against
25 Plaintiff like Roy’s letters, and in fact upbraided Plaintiff
further when he tried to defend himself. [Id. at p. 6].
26
27
28

1 157. Memorandum from DFJ00740 See evidentiary objections.

Peter Bryan to Jadwin, dated -741;
2 2/21/06, chastising Jadwin Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
for the tone of voice he used Depo., to DMF 156.
3 in his letter to Dr. Roy of 8/14/08,
2/10/06 and stating that “this pgs.
4 method.. exemplifies why it 137:1-
is becoming increasingly 144:9
5 difficult for you to work with
key members of the medical
6 staff.”
7 158. Email to Peter Bryan DFJ00744 Undisputed that the document says what it says.
from Jadwin, dated 2/23/06, -745
8 following the meeting of
2/22/06 urging Bryan to take
9 the moral high ground and
called Drs. Ragland and
10 Abraham “disgruntled,
vindictive individuals.”
11
159. Exchange of e-mails DFJ00783 Disputed: As is apparent from the email of 3/24/06,
12 with Peter Bryan from Plaintiff was protesting the delay in getting temporary
Jadwin, dated 3/24/06, help hired to assist his department during his medical
13 3/27/06, 4/5/06, criticizing leave. Plaintiff’s expert, Regina Levison, stated in her
Karen Barnes for insisting on report: “According to the documents I read and my
14 vicarious liability of staffing conversations with Dr. Jadwin, it is my opinion that Kern
agency before placing a County could have arranged for locum tenens coverage
15 temporary pathologist. Also, for the Pathology Department at Kern Medical Center
Jadwin postponed his own much more quickly than they did. Kern County could
16 surgery indefinitely because have contacted several other locum tenens firms if they
his mother was ill. were not able to reach contractual agreement with
17 CompHealth or any other companies in a reasonable
amount of time…Over the past 10-15 years, I have seen it
18 become more common for organizations needing locum
tenens coverage to place the request with several locum
19 tenens search firms simultaneously. If Kern County had
followed this practice, there would have been several
20 firms working to fill the Pathology Department's need for
locum tenens coverage. Kern County would not have been
21 liable to pay every firm for recruiting for a Pathologist
locum tenens, only the firm that found the Pathologist that
22 took the assignment”. [Declaration of Regina Levison
(Doc. 268) (“Levison Decl.”), Exh. 1 at Section 5 on p.8].
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 160. Memo from Peter Bryan DFJ00794 See evidentiary objections.

to Jadwin, dated 4/17/06, -795;
2 telling him that he must Bryan Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
either work on improving his Depo., to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 156, 176.
3 relationships with staff or 8/14/08,
step down as chairman of pgs. In that same letter, Bryan stated: “Yes, the Department of
4 pathology department. Bryan 231:9- Pathology continues to function well, as it has for many
states “You have made many 237:25; years, and, yes, you have made many positive changes to
5 derogatory comments about pgs. the department” [Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 12 (Bryan
some of the staff members” 233:2-17 memo to Jadwin of 4/17/06 at DFJ795); Bryan Depo at
6 and “this apparent lack of and 332:12-22; Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14 (Bryan’s Memo
insight on your part is at the 237:2-11 to Jadwin of 4/28/06 at DFJ1152)]. Later, Bryan testified
7 heart of your inability to that, as of April 28, 2006, “actual functioning of the
meaningfully contribute as a department of [pathology] actually was fairly good”. [Lee
8 member of the medical staff Opp. Decl., Exh. 3 (Bryan Depo at 332:12-22).]. Bryan
leadership group.” In Bryan’s also testified that if there were any complaints about
9 Depo., he distinguished Plaintiff they would have “bubbled” up to him as CEO,
between the department but that was not the case as of 4/17/06. [Lee Opp. Decl.,
10 running well on a technical Exh. 2 (Bryan Depo. at 333:18-334:9)]. At the same time,
level (which he notes in this Bryan wrote to the DHS re: Plaintiff’s demotion: “Quality
11 memo) and Jadwin’s of care issues was not the basis for making this decision.
deficiencies as department To the contrary, Dr. Jadwin has been on an extended
12 chair leave of absence from the hospital and there was a need to
provide consistent administrative leadership within the
13 department.” [Lee Decl., Exh. 19 at 0001619)].
14 161. E-mail from Peter 0001581 See evidentiary objections:

Bryan to Jadwin, dated
15 4/17/06, responding to an e- Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
mail from Jadwin in which Plaintiff’s counts.
16 Jadwin pushes an issue of
“pathology informatics.”
17 Bryan’s response was stem,
“I clearly indicated to you
18 that your proposed solution
of a free standing system for
19 pathology was not going to
happen. I have repeated this
20 to you many times .. “
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 162. Jadwin wanted to delete Martinez See evidentiary objections:

the “Complete Blood Count” Depo.,
2 from the laboratory’s test 4/16/08,
menu and only offer the pgs.
3 “Complete Blood Count with 121:17122 Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
Differential.” Gilbert : 19 Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
4 Martinez believed Jadwin’s 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
idea would pose a Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
5 compliance issue so Martinez salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
took the matter to the Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
6 Compliance Committee. performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
Both options stayed on the (Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
7 test menu. Martinez felt that DFJ00247).
Jadwin was being
8 uncooperative in this
incident.
9
163. Gilbert Martinez Martinez See evidentiary objections:
10 described an incident an Depo.,
unannounced inspection 4/16/08, Irrelevant to excusing Defendants’ liability under any of
11 occurred and Jadwin was not pgs. Plaintiff’s counts. It predates the October Conference of
present. Martinez proceeded 127:22- 12/16/05 by several years. Also, it is pretext. On 12/26/03,
12 to show the inspectors 130:3 Defendant County increased Plaintiff’s biweekly base
around the laboratory. salary from $10,679.43 to $11,021.08 establishing that
13 Jadwin returned, became Defendant County was satisfied with Plaintiff’s
upset when he discovered the performance as of that date. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 21
14 inspectors were there, stated (Change of Employee Status of 12/26/03 at Bates
that the inspection had been DFJ00247).
15 mishandled, and then said
that if Jadwin had a gun, he Disputed: Martinez also testified that he did not interpret
16 would shoot someone. the comment to mean that Plaintiff was physically
Jadwin never apologized to threatening him or anyone else. [Lee Decl., Exh. 8
17 him for making the remark. (Martinez Depo. at 128:19-129:7; 130:4-11)]. Martinez
The incident happened testified that he didn’t file a police complaint or a
18 sometime before 2005. workplace violent or any other complaint – instead he
dismissed it as a stray remark. [Ibid.].
19
164. Dr. Dutt believed that Dutt See evidentiary objections.
20 Jadwin tried to retaliate Depo.,
against Dr. Taylor who is 8/20/08
21 married to Dr. Abraham. pgs.
Jadwin’s dislike of Dr. 291:7-
22 Abraham is well-known. For 292: 11
instance, Jadwin refused to
23 make the obvious diagnosis
on one of Dr. Taylor’s cases.
24
25
26
27
28

1 165. Dr. Dutt reported to Dr. Dutt See evidentiary objections.

Harris complaints by Dr. Depo.,
2 Shertukde that Jadwin was 8/20/08,
angry and hostile toward her. pgs.
3 Dutt did so because he was 298:23-
afraid that Dr. Shertukde or 300:24
4 Vangie Gallegos would file a
case against the County for
5 harassment or hostile work
environment based on
6 Jadwin’s behavior.
7
Meeting on February 22,
8 2006
9 166. Dr. Abraham recalled Abraham See evidentiary objections.
how Jadwin insulted her and Depo.,
10 how he had insulted Dr. 8/18/08, Disputed: For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Response
Ragland and, in general, that pgs. to DMF 94, 101, 117, 126, 127, 133, 156, 176.
11 he managed to insult 198:24-
everyone who was there but 207: 17 Harris testified that he sincerely apologized to Plaintiff
12 she did not remember after the meeting. [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 24 (Harris Depo.
specific statements beyond at 199:1-6)]. He also testified that negative things were
13 those directed at her and Dr. said to Plaintiff at the meeting as well. [Id. at 232:19-21].
Ragland. Kercher was asked if he apologized to Plaintiff at the
14 meeting, and he responded “I apologize all the time,
sir…I do it all the time.” [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 14
15 (Kercher PMK Depo. at 93:19-24)].
16 Kercher also testified, “I don’t ever remember David
specifically treating me in a sassy, mean, horrible way…I
17 mean, he was always nice to me.” [Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
14 (Kercher PMK Depo at 32:9-13)]. Bryan testified that
18 Plaintiff did not insult him at the meeting. [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 3 (Bryan Depo at 110:11-13)]. Abraham
19 testified that Plaintiff called her a “fat doctor” but Kercher
testified “I don’t recall that comment any time”. [Lee
20 Opp. Decl., Exh. 14 (Kercher PMK Depo at 92:24-93:1)].
21 Plaintiff denied insulting anyone at the meeting. [Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 55 (Jadwin Depo. at 222:14-223:7;
22 223:15-17). He also confirmed that Harris and Kercher
had both apologized to him after the meeting. [Lee Opp.
23 Decl., Exh. 4 (Jadwin Depo. at 290:16-19)].
24 167. Jadwin insulted, Bryan For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
literally, everyone at the Depo., 166 supra.
25 meeting face-to-face. 8/14/08,
pgs. 109:
26 12-111:10
27
28

1 168. Bryan thanked Dr. Bryan See evidentiary objections.

Ragland for showing Depo.,
2 restraint in the face of 8/14/08, For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
Jadwin’s insults. pgs. 166 supra.
3 156:22-
157:12
4
169. Jadwin made attacking Harris See evidentiary objections.
5 statements and charges at Depo.,
attendees of 2/22/06 meeting. 8/13/08, For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
6 pg. 159:2- 166 supra.
13
7
170. Jadwin insulted Dr. Harris See evidentiary objections.
8 Ragland severely at the Depo.,
2/22/06 meeting. 8113/08, For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
9 pg. 196:7- 166 supra.
20
10
171. Jadwin insulted all of Harris See evidentiary objections.
11 the doctors at the meeting, Depo.,
including Dr. Harris. 8/13/08 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
12 pgs. 166 supra.
230:4-
13 232: 13
14 172. Harris refused to Harris See evidentiary objections.
characterize Jadwin’s Depo.,
15 behavior as crazy but he did 8113/08, For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
offer “excessive” as a pgs. 166 supra.
16 description and agreed with 234:24-
Eugene Lee’s adjectives of 235: 23 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
17 “unprofessional” and and 176 supra. Harris’s pretext is belied by his memos to file
“unreasonable.” Harris said it 305:20- regarding Mansour and the many formal and informal
18 was the most unprofessional, 308: 22 complaints submitted against him. To date, Mansour was
unreasonable, excessive not subjected to administrative leave or nonrenewal as
19 behavior he has ever seen in Plaintiff was.
a physician.
20
173. The first incident of Ragland See evidentiary objections.
21 Jadwin’s inappropriate Depo.,
conduct was when Jadwin, 8/22/08, For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
22 during this meeting, said Dr. pg. 16:12- 166 supra.
Ragland was incompetent 16
23 and shouldn’t be the medical
staff president.
24
25
26
27
28

1 174. E-mail from Dr. 0000507 Disputed: Defendants are quoting out of context. In that
Ragland to Peter Bryan, email exchange, Ragland specifically expressed his
2 dated 2/23/06, stating that the disdain for Plaintiff’s whistleblowing efforts: “that was
meeting with Jadwin on one of the most distasteful event I have ever participated
3 2/22/06 was “one of the most in [Plaintiff] has fixed his department so now he is going
distasteful events I have ever to fix us?” [Lee Decl., Exh. 11 (Ragland email to Bryan
4 participated in.” of 2/23/06 at 0000507)].
5 Bryan made no bones about indicating that his allegiance

lay with Ragland, Harris, Abraham and Kercher: “I know
6 it was really challenging to remain cordial and not
combative [with Plaintiff], and goodness a couple of you
7 could have really hit back”, even as he portrayed himself
as an impartial adjudicator to Plaintiff. [Ibid.].
8
9
10 Demotion to Staff
Pathologist
11
175. Pathology Dept. 0000903 - See evidentiary objections.
12 Proctoring Report on Dr. 913
Dutt, dated 1/l8/06, and Disputed: Plaintiff issued this proctoring report just a few
13 completed by Jadwin who months after Dutt’s hire. Plaintiff was able to form a
said that Dr. Dutt’s fuller, and very different, opinion of Dutt’s performance
14 performance is “responsible as a pathologist after further opportunity to work closely
and excellent.” with him. Plaintiff formed the opinion over time that Dutt
15 was a weak pathologist.
[Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 9].
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 176. Exchange of e-mails DFJ01430 Disputed: For sake of economy, Plaintiff’s Response to
between Dr. Dutt and DMF 112 is incorporated in its entirety herein.
2 Jadwin, dated 11/6/06,
regarding a container of Disputed: This is pretext for retaliatory motive and
3 specimen left sitting out. To disparate treatment of Plaintiff. Dr. Mansour, an OB-
remedy the situation, Dr. GYN core physician, is a direct comparator to Plaintiff
4 Dutt instructed that only after his demotion – both reported to respective
Evangeline “Vangie” department chairs at KMC. Mansour was the subject of a
5 Gallegos was to process the staggering number of serious complaints of disruptive
placentas. behavior from 5/10/2006 to 4/12/2007. Yet, he was not
6 put on administrative leave or subjected to nonrenewal.
Harris reported in numerous memos to file that: 1)
7 Mansour had used an “angry and raised voice” at him.
[Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 34 (Harris memos to file, Exh. 736
8 at Bates 0027083)]; 2) Roy went to Harris to “complain
about abuses by Dr. Mansour” including “ridicule and
9 criticism” and threatened to leave KMC [Id. at Exh. 740
at Bates 0027094]; 3) Harris concluded “the comments
10 made by Dr. Mansour [about Roy] were unprofessional,
inappropriate, and of malicious intent.” [Id. at Exh. 740 at
11 Bates 0027094]; 4) Harris counseled Mansour “on the
spot” regarding his inappropriate criticism of nursing staff
12 in front of residents - [Id. at Exh. 742 at Bates 0027097];
5) Harris noted that Mansour’s actions were so egregious
13 to the “NRP Team” and medical staff officers that
Ragland and Jose Perez contemplated suspending him, “if
14 for no other reason than for ‘possible assault’ on the
respiratory therapist.” [Id. at Exh. 746 at Bates 0027102];
15 6) Harris noted that he remained skeptical of Mansour’s
ability to “communicate constructively and to engender
16 the support of others with whom he works”. [Id. at Exh.
746 at Bates 0027103]; 7) Harris faulted Mansour’s
17 “communication style” as not contributing to a
“communicative, helpful, collegial, and effective
18 environment at the hospital”. [Id. at Exh. 746 at Bates
0027104]; 8) Harris noted that only once or twice had his
19 blood pressure “gotten up” at KMC but that Mansour had
become “truly exasperating” and that Mansour “can never
20 be legitimately criticized, because anyone who would
criticize him would have to be out to get him”. [Id. at Exh.
21 746 at Bates 0027104]; 9) Harris noted that he and
Culberson presented to Mansour five complaints of
22 quality concerns and one patient complaint. [Id. at Exh.
747 at Bates 0027105]; 10) Mansour responded that “all
23 of this is a remnant of Peter Bryan. It was Mansour who
got rid of Peter Bryan”. [Id. at Exh. 747 at Bates
24 0027106]; 11) Harris noted a complaint that Mansour had
improperly thrown surgical instruments. [Id. at Exh. 749
25 at Bates 0027109].
26 Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this hearsay account reported

by Dutt. [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 10].
27
28

1 177. E-mail from Evangeline 0000824 Disputed: Dutt himself was the target of complaints
“Vangie” Gallegos to Dr. within the Pathology department. Yet he was not
2 Dutt, dated 11/6/06, thanking subjected to disciplinary action. As late as 2/6/07, Harris
him for his support and noted in his memos to file that Dutt himself had not
3 complaining about Jadwin “embraced the broad support of the pathology department
interfering in her work area and lab” and has been the target of complaints from other
4 and “creating more work for medical staff members in the pathology department.
everybody.” She asked if she Harris decided Dutt should not be promoted from Acting
5 could go home early as she to full Chair of Pathology until he could demonstrate
was feeling sick. “those administrative demeanors desired of a Chair under
6 conditions of lower environmental stress.” [Lee Opp.
Decl., Exh. 34 (Harris memos to file, Exh. 745 at Bates
7 0027100-27101].
9 Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin

Opp. Decl., para. 11].
10
178. Exchange of e-mails DFJ01439 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
11 between Dr. Dutt and (0000840 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
Jadwin, dated 11/13/06 and 841) entirety herein.
12 11/14/06, wherein Jadwin
requested that he have an See evidentiary objections.
13 assigned assistant and that
the assigned assistant be Disputed: Plaintiff disputes it would be demeaning and
14 required to notify him when time consuming to have an employee clock in and out. It
leaving the lab for more than occurs in workplaces all across the country every day.
15 5 minutes. Dr. Dutt’s [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 12].
response was to deny the
16 need for an assistant as the
department had three
17 pathologists and to remark
how “demeaning and time
18 consuming” it would be to
constantly clock in and out.
19
179. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to DFJ01446 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
20 Jadwin, dated 11/17/06, -01447 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
expressing frustration with (0000843) entirety herein.
21 Jadwin’s reaction to
counseling which is to See evidentiary objections.
22 escalate the situation, blame
others, or attack others. Dr. Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
23 Dutt also promised to find Opp. Decl., para. 13].
the records where Jadwin did
24 not submit a “rush” case or
most of his other cases that
25 day. He also asserted that
Jadwin had done this before.
26
27
28

1 180. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to DFJ01448 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, (0000850) 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
2 discussing their disagreement entirety herein.
on the necessity for
3 privileges for FNA and the See evidentiary objections.
necessity for proctoring.
5
181. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to DFJ01449 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
6 Jadwin, dated 11/22/06, (000085]) 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
reminding him of a rush case entirety herein.
7 that Jadwin failed to process
promptly and counseling See evidentiary objections.
8 Jadwin to remember it when
criticizing others. Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
9 Opp. Decl., para. 15].
10 182. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to 0000827 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
Jadwin, dated 12/4/06, 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
11 chastising Jadwin for entirety herein.
criticizing Dr. Shertukde’s
12 diagnosis without consulting See evidentiary objections.
others first; chastising him
13 for refusing to get outside Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
consult on a hard case; and Opp. Decl., para. 16].
14 chastising him for failing to
remove the sharps from the
15 cutting area when he was
done.
16
a) Minutes of the meeting of 0000899 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
17 the pathology/histology 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
department on 10/17/06. It entirety herein.
18 was noted that Dr. Shertukde
was concerned that blades See evidentiary objections.
19 were not being removed once
grossing was done. She and Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
20 Dr. Dutt remove and discard Opp. Decl., para. 16].
the blades immediately.
21
b) E-mail from Dr. Dutt to 0000862 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
22 Yolanda Figueroa, dated 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
12/7/06, acknowledging her entirety herein.
23 report that Jadwin had left
two long blades and a scalpel Disputed: Figueroa disputes this hearsay account reported
24 out after he was finished. by Dutt. [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 6].
26
27
28

1 183. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to DFJ01465 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
Jadwin, dated 12/5/06, (0000856) 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
2 regarding Jadwin’s entirety herein.
uncooperativeness with him
3 and general failure to adhere See evidentiary objections.
to a chain of command.
5
184. E-mails between Dr. DFJ01476 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
6 Dutt and Jadwin, dated -1478 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
12/6/06, arguing over a (0000857- entirety herein.
7 criticism Jadwin made of a 858)
diagnosis that Dr. Shertukde See evidentiary objections.
8 did and involving alleged
defamatory and retaliatory Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
9 statements made by Jadwin. Opp. Decl., para. 18].
Dr. Dutt tells Jadwin that
10 people are afraid of him
because of his hostility and
11 that it is Jadwin’s fault for
how he treats others.
12
185. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to 0001466 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
13 David Culberson, dated 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
12/6/06, stating that he had entirety herein.
14 counseled Jadwin for not
sending out a case for See evidentiary objections.
15 consultation that, in fact,
turned out to be a missed Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
16 endometrial cancer and now Opp. Decl., para. 19].
Jadwin was pushing a lot of
17 cases out for consultation,
burdening the staffs time and
18 budget.
19 186. E-mail from Dr. Dutt to 0000863 For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
Jadwin, dated 12/7/06, 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
20 chastising him for entirety herein.
commanding Yolanda to
21 treat the placentas when in Disputed: Figueroa disputes this hearsay account reported
his e-mail of 11/6/06 by Dutt. [Jadwin Opp. Decl., para. 20].
22 (0000825 above) specifically
said that only Vangie was to See evidentiary objections.
23 work with placentas.
24 187. Jadwin was Dutt For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
uncooperative after returning Depo., 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
25 from leave. He was asked 8/20/08, entirety herein.
specifically to resume doing pg.
26 the blood bank reviews and 284:25- See evidentiary objections.
he did not do them. 285:5
28

1 188. Dr. Dutt, acting Chair of Dutt For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
the Pathology Department Depo., 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
2 had concerns that Jadwin was 8/20/08, entirety herein.
creating a hostile work pgs.
3 environment. This prompted 286:6- See evidentiary objections.
meetings with Dr. Perez, 289: 1;
4 David Culberson, and Dr. 290:14-20 Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
Harris. Opp. Decl., para. 22].
5
189. Dr. Dutt would try to Dutt For sake of economy, see Plaintiff’s Responses to DMF
6 counsel Jadwin one-on-one Depo., 176 and 177 supra, which are incorporated in their
but Jadwin would avoid the 8/20/08, entirety herein.
7 conversation. He would pgs.296:2
make an excuse to leave the 0-297:13 See evidentiary objections.
8 room or leave the hospital.
Because Jadwin made it Disputed: Plaintiff disputes this account by Dutt. [Jadwin
9 difficult for Dr. Dutt to talk Opp. Decl., para. 23].
to him, Dr. Dutt had no
10 alternative but to send his
concerns about Jadwin’s
11 work to the Peer Review
Committee.
12
190. E-mail to Dr. Dutt from DFJ01479 Undisputed.
13 Jadwin, dated 12/6/06, with -1480
copies to David Culberson,
14 Dr. Harris and Karen Barnes,
alleging that he has been
15 “singled out for non-
transparent ‘PCC r review’”
16 as well as personal attacks,
and he requests the KMC
17 administration to initiate a
formal review.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
Π’S MATERIAL FACTS (“PMF”) Π’S SOURCE
2 2
3 3 A. INTRODUCTION
4 4
5 5 Plaintiff is the former Chief of Pathology at Kern Medical Supplemental Decl. of Eugene
Center (“KMC” or “the hospital”), an acute care teaching Lee in Support of Plaintiff’s
6 hospital and health care facility that is owned and operated Motion for Summary Judgment
by Defendant County of Kern (“Defendant County” or “the (“Lee Supp. Decl.”, Doc. 267),
7 County”). Exh. 19 (Scheduling Order
(“SCO”) at 8:2-4); Exh. 20 (RFA
8 No. 18 at 5:7-10, RFA No. 19 at
13-15; RFA No. 24 at 6:7-10).
9
10
11
12
13 6
14 7 B. STATEMENT OF FACTS
15 8 In October 2000, Dr. Jadwin began full-time employment at Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
KMC as chair of the pathology department. Plaintiff was an 19 (Scheduling Order (“SCO”) at
16 employee of Defendant County from October 24, 2000 to 8:2-4), Decl. of Eugene Lee in
October 4, 2007. Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
17 for Summary Judgment (“Lee
Decl.”, Doc. 266) Exh. 22
18 (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
Employment Contract of
19 11/12/02 at (a) on DFJ1416)
20 9 Throughout the course of his employment at KMC, Dr. Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Jadwin tried to ensure that patient care was based on 10 (Bryan’s Letter to Supervisors
21 adequate and accurate pathology. of 1/17/06 at No. 10 on 0001567)
22
10 In May 2005, Dr. Jadwin began formally expressing his Decl. of David F. Jadwin in
23 concerns that KMC was not complying with state Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
regulations regarding blood transfusion documentation. for Summary Judgment
24 (“Jadwin Decl.” Doc. 265), Exh.
2 (Jadwin Email to Ramos-
25 Aninion of 5/19/05 at DFJ00407)
26
27
28

1 11 In October 2005, Dr. Jadwin presented at an intra-hospital Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 2
conference where he reported on uncaught pathology report (Presentation at DFJ481-484,
2 errors that potentially jeopardized the care of a 494-495)
hysterectomy patient and the need for a policy to address
3 the problem.
4
5 12 Defendants responded by calling him into a meeting, Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 4
severely reprimanding him, and informing him that letters (Taylor Letter to Harris of
6 of reprimand would be placed in his physician credentials 10/12/05 at DFJ00580); Exh. 5
file. (McBride Letter to Harris of
7 10/12/055 at DFJ00581); Exh. 6
(Roy Letter to Harris of 10/12/05
8 at DFJ00583); Exh. 7 (Kercher et
al Letter to Jadwin of 10/17/05 at
9 DFJ00588))
10
11
13 Defendants’ retaliatory conduct exacerbated Dr. Jadwin’s Lee Decl. (Doc. 266) Exh. 9
12 chronic depression and proved so disabling that, at the end (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
of 2005, he was forced to take a reduced work schedule 1/9/06 at 0001140); Decl. of Paul
13 medical leave as an accommodation and seek psychiatric Riskin, M.D. Authenticating
therapy. Documents (“Riskin Decl.”, Doc.
14 270) (Certification of 1/13/06 at
DFJ1810); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc.
15 267), Exh. 8 (Jadwin Depo. at
495:2-496:20)
16
17 14 In April 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension of his Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 6
reduced work schedule leave. (Jadwin’s Request for Leave
18 Extension of 4/26/06 at
DFJ00157), Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s
19 Email to Bryan, Chester, & Dutt
of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752)
20
21
15 On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan responded by placing Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
22 him on full-time “personal necessity leave” under the 22 (Rog. No. 36, 27:1-4); Lee
County’s leave policy and, a few months later, ordered him Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
23 not to contact anybody at KMC or he would be fired (Bryan’s Memo to Jadwin of
(“Forced FT Leave”). 4/28/06 at DFJ01152, DFJ01155-
24 1159, DFJ01164); Lee Decl.
(Doc. 266), Exh. 16 (Nunn’s
25 Cover Email to Jadwin of 6/26/06
at DFJ01346)
26
27
28

1 16 On June 14, 2006, Defendant Bryan told Dr. Jadwin that he Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 15
had decided to “rescind your appointment as chairman” and (Bryan’s Letter to Jadwin of
2 that “This decision is effective June 17, 2006”. 6/14/06 at DFJ01181)
3
17 On July 10, 2006, Defendant Bryan recommended to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18
4 KMC’s Joint Conference Committee (“JCC”) that Plaintiff (Bryan’s Memo to JCC of
be removed from his position as Chair of the pathology 7/10/06 at 0001476-77); Lee
5 department “based on Dr. Jadwin’s unavailability for Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21
service because of extended medical leaves for non-work (Rog No. 37 at 51:20-23); Lee
6 related ailments” and “solely based on his continued non- Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 22
availability to provide the leadership necessary for a (Rog. No. 37, 27:9-11)
7 contributing member of the medical staff leadership
group..Dr. Jadwin has provided no indication that he is
8 committed to return to work or resume his duties as chair.
Other than his latest written communication requesting an
9 extension of his medical leave, Dr. Jadwin has made no
attempt in the last two months to contact me concerning his
10 employment status or how the Department of Pathology
should be managed during his absence”.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 18 At a meeting of the JCC on July 10, 2006, Defendant Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
County approved the demotion of Plaintiff from chair of the 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:15-
19 pathology department for “unavailability”. Members of the 114:4); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
JCC based their vote on his unavailability due in part to his Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes of 7/10/06
20 medical leave. at 0009819-21); Lee Decl. (Doc.
266), Exh. 18 (Bryan’s Memo to
21 JCC of 7/10/06 at 0001476-77)
22
23 19 Defendant County then conditioned Dr. Jadwin’s return to Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
work as a regular pathologist on his medical release to full 21 (Rog1 No. 33 at 50:16-26;
24 time work and entry into an amendment to his contract that Rog1 Nos. 38-41 at 51:26-52:23);
contained restrictive terms and conditions and reduced Dr. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
25 Jadwin’s base pay from roughly $300,000 to $200,000. (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
26 11/12/02 at (a) & (f) on DFJ1416,
(i) on DFJ1417, & DFJ1420 at
27 “Assignments”)
28

1 20 When demoting Dr. Jadwin, Defendants Bryan and the Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), para 9)
County did not notify Dr. Jadwin of the hospital committee
2 vote to demote him or give him a chance to defend himself
prior to, at or after the vote.
3
4
21 On his return to work as a demoted pathologist in late 2006, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
5 Dr. Jadwin was placed beneath a former subordinate whom 19 (SCO at 9:10-11); Lee Supp.
he had hired and trained the year before. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 22 (Rog.
6 No. 10, 4:10-11)
7
8
22 After about two months, Dr. Jadwin decided to go outside Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 8
9 the hospital and report his ongoing suspicions of legal (JCAHO’s Email to Jadwin of
noncompliance and illegal and/or unsafe care and 11/29/06 at DFJ01454); Exh. 9
10 conditions of patients at KMC to regulatory and (DHS Letter to Jadwin of
accreditation agencies, as well as KMC senior management. 12/1/06); Exh. 12 (Jadwin Decl.
11 (Doc. 265), Exh. 12 (Jadwin’s
Email to CAP of 1/15/07 at
12 DFJ02463-DFJ02499)
13
14 23 Plaintiff also complained to KMC’s senior management Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 11
about the harsh treatment he was receiving. (Jadwin Email to Culberson of
15 12/13/06 at DFJ01488-DFJ1491)
16
17 24 The following day, on December 7, 2006, Defendant Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
County placed Dr. Jadwin on administrative leave “pending 21 (Rog1 No. 42 at 52:24-53:1);
18 resolution of a personnel matter.” Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 24
(Culberson Letter to Jadwin of
19 12/7/06 at DFJ01482)
20 25 The leave denied Plaintiff the opportunity to earn patient- Decl. of Stephanie Rizzardi in
based professional fees, which had amounted to roughly Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
21 $100,000 per year (“Professional Fees”) prior to his taking Summary Judgment (“Rizzardi
of reduced work schedule leave. Decl.”, Doc. 271), Exh. 1, Table
22 7; Jadwin Decl. para 14
23
26 Dr. Jadwin formally notified KMC of his whistle-blowing Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 10
24 reports to the outside regulatory and accreditation agencies. (Jadwin Letter to Culberson of
12/6/06 at DFJ01488-91)
25
26
27
28

1 27 Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave for another ten Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
months until his contract expired on October 4, 2007. (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
2 Employment Contract of
11/12/02 at (a) on DFJ1416);
3 Jadwin Decl. para 12
4 28 During six of those months, Dr. Jadwin was physically Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
restricted to his home during work hours. 5 (Wasser Letter to Lee of
5 4/30/07 at DFJ01701)
6 29 The county decided not to renew Dr. Jadwin’s contract, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
which expired on October 4, 2007. 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:15-
7 114:4);Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
Exh. 22 (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
11/12/02 at Recital (a))
9
10 30 From October 2000 to the present, KMC – a hospital with Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
roughly 60 full-time faculty physicians – had failed to 22 (Rog. No. 28, 20:8-21)
11 renew the contract of only 1 other KMC physician.
12
13 31 Plaintiff’s position had been that of a permanent, core Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
physician, whose contracts are customarily renewed. 10 (Bryan Depo, 39:6-8); Lee
Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2 (Jadwin
14 Employment Contract, p.1);
Jadwin Decl. para 7
15
16 32 Defendant County based its nonrenewal decision on Dr. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18
Jadwin’s medical and recuperative leave, and the fact he (Bryan’s Memo to JCC of
had brought a lawsuit opposing employment practices 7/10/06 at 0001476-77)
17 prohibited by the Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”),
the California Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and the Fair
18 Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”).
19
20
21
22 33 To this day, Dr. Jadwin has not personally received an Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), para 13
explanation from Defendants as to why he was placed on
23 administrative leave or why his contract was not renewed,
despite repeated requests for an explanation. Defendants
24 never notified Dr. Jadwin of the charges against him or
permitted him to defend himself.
25
26
27
34
28

1 35 B. THRESHOLD ISSUES
2 36 During the entire tenure of Plaintiff’s employment, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Defendant County was continuously an employer within the 19 (SCO at 6:25-7:3)
3 meaning of FMLA [29 C.F.R. § 825.105(C)], CFRA [Gov’t
C. § 12945.2 (b)(2)], and FEHA [Gov’t C. § 12926(d)]
4 engaged in interstate commerce, and regularly employing
more than fifty employees within seventy-five miles of
5 Plaintiff’s regular workplace at KMC.
6
7
8
9 37 Defendant County is a government agency. Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
20 (RFA No. 20, 5:16-19)
10
11
38
12
39 1. Threats to Plaintiff’s Credentials
13
40 On October 12, 2005, Defendant Harris solicited and Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 4
14 received letters of dissatisfaction from three KMC core (Taylor Letter to Harris of
physicians, criticizing Dr. Jadwin’s presentation at a KMC 10/12/05 at DFJ00580); Exh. 5
15 monthly Oncology Conference. (McBride Letter to Harris of
10/12/055 at DFJ00581); Exh. 6
16 (Roy Letter to Harris of 10/12/05
at DFJ00583); Exh. 7 (Kercher et
17 al Letter to Jadwin of 10/17/05 at
DFJ00588))
18
19
20 41 On October 17, 2005, KMC’s senior medical staff wrote to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 7
Dr. Jadwin notifying him that these letters of dissatisfaction (Kercher et al Letter to Jadwin of
21 would be placed in his credentialing file (“Credential 10/17/05 at DFJ00588)
Threat”).
22
23
42 Some of the medical staff involved later apologized to Dr. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 12
24 Jadwin. (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
4/17/06 at DFJ00794
25
43
26
44 2. Demotion & Pay Cut
27
28

1 45 Dr. Jadwin’s employment contract expressly provided that Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Dr. Jadwin would be chair of the KMC pathology 20 (RFA No. 243 at 49:22-27)
2 department and paid base compensation of $287,529 (“Base
Pay”).
3
4
46 On July 10, 2006, Bryan recommended and the JCC Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
5 approved Jadwin’s demotion from department chair to staff 20 (RFA No. 229 at 47:4-9); Lee
pathologist (“Demotion”). Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 20
6 (RFA No. 228 at 46:27-47:1)
7
8
9
10
47 It is uncontested that Defendants considered a portion of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Dr. Jadwin’s pay to be tied to his chair position, and that 20 (RFA No. 228 at 58:6-10);
11 the demotion therefore made the paycut a foregone Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
conclusion. The JCC vote to demote Plaintiff was 21 (Rog No. 11 at 13:10-21); Lee
12 effectively a vote to reduce his Base Pay as well. Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 3
(Barnes Letter to Lee of 9/15/06
13 at DFJ1390); Lee Decl. (Doc.
266), Exh. 22 (Amendment No. 1
14 to Employment Contract dated
10/3/06 at (a) & (f) on DFJ01416,
15 (i) on DFJ01417)
16
48 Defendants County and Harris informed Dr. Jadwin that his Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
17 return to work at KMC was conditioned on his entry into an 20 (RFA No. 246 at 50:12-16)
amendment to his employment contract, instituting a
18 reduction in Base Pay from $287,529 to $186,687
(“Paycut”).
19
20
49 On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff executed the amendment to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
21 his employment contract. (Amendment No. 1 to
Employment Contract dated
22 10/3/06 at DFJ01418)
23 50
24 51 3. Administrative Leave
25 52 A pathologist is valued according to the efficacy of his Decl. of Regina Levison in
“eye”, i.e., the training and experience that allows him to Support of Plaintiff’s Motion
26 spot minute patterns and telltale abnormalities in for Summary Judgment
microscopic and gross tissue samples. (“Levison Decl.”, Doc. 268) Exh.
27 1 At p 6
28

1 53 Developing and maintaining the pathologist “eye” requires Levison Decl. (Doc. 268), Exh. 1
years of daily pathology work; however, it takes only a few At p 6
2 months of being away from work to lose enough efficacy to
threaten a pathologist’s career.
3
4
54 Moreover, Dr. Jadwin’s contract expressly provided that he Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
5 was to earn patient billing-based professional fees, separate (Jadwin Employment Contract of
and apart from his fixed Base Pay. 11/12/02 at No. 4 on DFJ00156-
6 157)
7 55 In order to earn Professional Fees, Dr. Jadwin needed to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
process and bill patient cases. (Jadwin Employment Contract of
8 11/12/02 at No. 4 on DFJ00156-
157 (“direct patient
9 care”…through “an agreement
for services with the County”);
11
12 56 Restriction to his workplace at KMC by placement on leave Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
denied him the opportunity to earn such fees. (Jadwin Employment Contract of
11/12/02 at No. 4 on DFJ00156-
13 157 (“direct patient
care”…through “an agreement
14 for services with the County”)
15
16
57 Dr. Jadwin’s professional fee income amounted to Rizzardi Decl. (Doc. 271), Exh.
17 approximately $100,000 per year. 1, Table 7; Jadwin Decl. para 14
18
58 On December 7, 2006, Defendant County placed Plaintiff Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
19 on paid administrative leave “pending resolution of a 20 (RFA No. 252 at 51:16-20);
personnel matter” (“Admin Leave”). Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
20 22 (Rog. No. 42, 28:3-9); Lee
Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 24
21 (Culberson Letter to Jadwin of
12/7/06 at DFJ01482)
22
59 Defendant County further ordered Plaintiff to “remain at Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 24
23 home and available by telephone during normal business (Culberson Letter to Jadwin of
hours” and not to contact anyone at KMC, else he could be 12/7/06 at DFJ01482)
24 terminated. There was no further indication of what
Plaintiff was being charged with, whether he would be
25 permitted to respond to charges, or when the leave would
end.
26
27
28

1 60 No investigation, explanation or resolution ensued. Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), para 6
2
61 On April 4, 2007, Plaintiff notified Defendant County that Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
3 the long leave was exacerbating his depression, eroding his 4 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 4/4/07
pathology skills and employability, and denying him the at DFJ01619)
4 opportunity to earn professional fees.
5
6
62 On April 30, 2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Jadwin Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
7 that he remained on administrative leave but removed the 22 (Rog. No. 43, 28:10-16); Lee
home restriction. Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 5
8 (Wasser Letter to Lee of 4/30/07
at DFJ01701)
9
63 On May 1, 2007, Defendant County informed Dr. Jadwin Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
10 that they intended to keep Dr. Jadwin on leave and “let his 21 (Rog No. 43 at 53:3-9); Lee
contract run out”. Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 22
11 (Rog. No. 44, 28:17-22); Lee
Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 6
12 (Wasser Email to Lee of 5/1/07 at
DFJ01705)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
64 Dr. Jadwin remained on administrative leave until his Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
employment contract expired on October, 4, 2007. (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
11/12/02 at (a) on DFJ01416, (i)
21 on DFJ01417; Jadwin Decl. (Doc.
265), para. 12
22
23 65
24 66 4. Nonrenewal
25 67 Supervisor Ray Watson, then-Chair of the Board of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Supervisors, voted as a member of the JCC to demote Dr. 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:15-
26 Jadwin and effectively cut his pay, and also participated in 114:4)
the decision not to renew Plaintiff’s employment contract
27
28

1 68 Ray Watson, Chair of the Board Supervisors at the time of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
the Nonrenewal, testified in Depo.: “My understanding was 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:15-
2 that [Plaintiff] had -- he had been on medical leave, family 114:4)
leave, and had requested even more leave, and that for that
3 reason and the fact that he was suing us, that we decided
not to renew his contract.” (“Nonrenewal”).
4
5
6
7 69 Moreover, Dr. Jadwin was a “core physician” at KMC, a Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
permanent position. 10 (Bryan Depo, 39:6-8); Lee
8 Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2 (Jadwin
Employment Contract, p.1);
10
70 There was a mutually explicit understanding that, as a core Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
11 physician, Plaintiff’s contract would be continuously 10 (Bryan Depo, 39:6-8); Jadwin
renewed. Decl. para 7; Lee Supp. Decl.
12 (Doc. 267), Exh. 22 (Rog. No. 28,
20:8-21)
13
71 In fact, from October 2000 to present, only one other Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
14 physician besides Dr. Jadwin has not had his contract 20 (RFA No. 275 at 55:22-26)
renewed.
15
16
17 72
18 73 D. CAUSATION
19 74 Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin’s Decl. of Anthony Reading,
emotional distress leading to recurrence of his chronic Ph.D. (“Reading Decl.”, Doc.
20 major depressive disorder. 269) Exh. 1, p. 58 - 59 at Overall
Conclusions
21
22
75 Credential Threat was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin’s Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1,
23 reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave and loss p. 58 - 59 at Overall Conclusions;
of opportunity to earn Professional Fees from December 16, Supplemental Decl. of David F.
24 2005 to on or around April 28, 2006. Jadwin in Support of Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment
25 (“Jadwin Supp. Decl.” Doc. 272)
5, 6
26
27
28

1 76 Forced FT Leave was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin’s Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1,
emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin’s p. 59-60 at Overall Conclusions;
2 major depression. Jadwin Supp. Decl. 6
3
4 77 Forced FT Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s loss Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
of opportunity to earn Professional Fees as provided for in (Jadwin Employment Contract, at
5 his employment contract from on or around April 28, 2006 DFJ00154, 156); Jadwin Supp.
to June 17, 2006. Decl. 6
6
7
78 Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Dr. Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1,
8 Jadwin’s emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. p. 58 - 59 at Overall Conclusions
Jadwin’s major depression.
9
10
11 79 Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Base Pay Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
reduction from $287,529 to $186,687 from October 3, 2006 (Amendment 1 to Lee Decl.
12 onward. (Doc. 266)); Exh. 2 (Jadwin
13 11/12/02 at (i) on DFJ1417)
14 80 Demotion and Paycut were substantial causes of Levison Decl. (Doc. 268), Exh. 1
termination of Plaintiff’s career as a pathology department At p 6
15 chair due to unemployability.
16
17 81 Admin Leave, during 5 months of which Plaintiff was Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1,
restricted full-time to his home, was a substantial cause of p. 59-60 at Overall Conclusions
Dr. Jadwin’s emotional distress, leading to worsening of
18 Dr. Jadwin’s major depression.
19
20 82 Admin Leave was a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s loss of Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
opportunity to earn Professional Fees as provided for in his (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
21 employment contract from on or around December 7, 2006 Employment Contract of
to October 4, 2007 11/12/02 at (i) on DFJ1417);
22 Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), para 14
23
83 Admin Leave was a substantial cause of loss of Plaintiff’s Levison Decl. (Doc. 268), Exh. 1
24 pathologist “eye”, causing him to become unemployable as At p 6
a pathologist.
25
84 Nonrenewal was a substantial cause of Dr. Jadwin’s Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1,
26 emotional distress, leading to worsening of Dr. Jadwin’s p. 59-60 at Overall Conclusions
major depression.
27
28

1 85 Nonrenewal was a substantial cause of Plaintiff’s lost Base Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
Pay of $186,687 and Professional Fees of roughly $100,000 (Jadwin Employment Contract of
2 per year, as provided for in his employment contract, from 11/12/02 at No. 4 on DFJ00156-
on or around October 4, 2007 onward. 157); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh.
3 22 (Amendment 1 to Jadwin
4 11/12/02 at (i) on DFJ1417)
5
6 86
7 87 E. COUNTS 2&3: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S
8 WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION
9
88 1. Oncology Conference
10
89 Dr. Jadwin made a protected report to KMC’s medical staff Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 2
11 leadership about (a) the medical appropriateness of a (Presentation at DFJ481-484,
radical hysterectomy for a KMC patient (Patient No. 494-495)
12 1142693) based on inaccurate outside pathology reports –
which case was the subject of Plaintiff’s presentation at the
13 monthly KMC oncology conference held on October 12,
2005 (“October Conference”) – and (b) the unsafe
14 conditions created for other patients by the lack of a KMC
policy requiring internal pathology review of all outside
15 pathology reports prior to treatment (“IPR”).
16
17
18
19
20 90 Defendant County knew of Dr. Jadwin’s whistleblowing Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 7
report at the October Conference since Defendant Harris, (Kercher et al Letter to Jadwin of
21 then-CMO of KMC, and Jennifer Abraham, then- 10/17/05 at DFJ00588)
Immediate Past President, were in attendance.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 91 Each of the letters of reprimand which Defendant County Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 4
decided to place into Plaintiff’s medical credential file (Taylor Letter to Harris of
2 specifically reference Dr. Jadwin’s presentation at the 10/12/05 at DFJ00580); Exh. 5
October Conference. (McBride Letter to Harris of
3 10/12/055 at DFJ00581); Exh. 6
(Roy Letter to Harris of 10/12/05
4 at DFJ00583); Exh. 7 (Kercher et
al Letter to Jadwin of 10/17/05 at
5 DFJ00588)
6
7
92
8
93 2. PCCs
9
94 On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin made a protected report to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 9
10 Bryan regarding KMC’s noncompliance with state (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
regulations regarding blood transfusion related 1/9/06 at 0001141)
11 documentation called product chart copies (“PCCs”),
jeopardizing patient safety.
12
13
95 Improper documentation of blood transfusions creates Jadwin Supp. Decl. (Doc. 272),
14 patient risk of morbidity and mortality. para 3
15
16 96 Dr. Jadwin reasonably suspected that KMC’s ongoing Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 12
failure to maintain accurate and complete records of patient (Jadwin’s Email to CAP of
blood transfusions did not comply with H&S § 1602.5, 1/15/07 at DFJ02499); Jadwin
17 which requires PCC documentation to conform to AABB Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 13
accreditation standards. (DHS’s Fax to Jadwin of 8/11/08
18 at E264 on pages 2-4 (finding
almost 50% noncompliance at
19 KMC)); Jadwin Supp. Decl.
(Doc. 272), Exh. 1 at DFJ793
20
21 97 During his reduced work schedule medical leave, Dr. Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 12
Jadwin audited PCCs, and continued to report (Jadwin’s Email to CAP of
noncompliant incomplete or missing PCCs to Defendant 1/15/07 at both DFJ02463-
22 Bryan, Toni Smith, KMC Nurse Executive, and Risk DFJ02499); pages in between
Management and Quality Assurance through at least April show Dr. Jadwin’s audits of
23 17, 2006, when Plaintiff asked Defendant Bryan to set up a PCCs & his efforts to correct
meeting with Bernard Barmann, County Counsel, to discuss noncompliance internally);
24 his concerns regarding PCC noncompliance. Jadwin Supp. Decl. (Doc. 272),
Exh. 1 at DFJ793 (subject line
25 states “Compliance with
Regulations”)
26
27
28

1 98 The California Department of Health Services later Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 13
determined during the course of an inspection that KMC (DHS’s Fax to Jadwin of 8/11/08
2 was indeed failing to comply with PCC-related regulations. at E264 on pages 2-4 (finding
almost 50% noncompliance))
3
4
99 On April 17, 2006, Defendant Bryan threatened to demote Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 12
5 Plaintiff. (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
4/17/06 at DFJ00795)
6
100
7
101 3. Skull Flaps
8
102 Dr. Jadwin reasonably believed that storage of patient skull Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
9 caps occurring in an unlicensed laboratory freezer at KMC 9 (Martinez Depo at 14:2-22);
violated H&S § 1635.1. Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
10 12 (Dutt Depo at 244:6-9)
11
12 103 Unlicensed skull flap storage could give rise to a risk of Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), at para
patient morbidity or mortality. 15
13
104 Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services at Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
KMC (“Martinez”) confirmed that there were typically 9 (Martinez Depo At 10:2-7,
14 seven to nine skull flaps being stored in the lunlicensed 16:6-21)
aboratory freezer.
15
16
105 At times, upwards of 15 to 20 skull flaps were being stored Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
17 in KMC’s unlicensed freezer. 12 (Dutt Depo at 244:6-9)
18
19
20 106 Martinez shared Plaintiff’s concerns about unlicensed skull Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
flap storage in the laboratory freezer. 9 (Martinez Depo 14:2-12)
21
22
23
107 When Dr. Jadwin discovered skull flaps being illegally Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
stored in the laboratory freezer, he discussed the problem 9 (Martinez Depo 14:2-22)
24 with Gilbert Martinez, the Manager of Laboratory Services
at KMC (“Martinez”).
25
26
27
28

1 108 Around Thanksgiving 2006, Dr. Jadwin tipped Martinez off Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
that he intended to blow the whistle about his unresolved 9 (Martinez Depo at 111:12-
2 complaints about unsafe patient care and conditions, 112:4)
including unlicensed skull flap storage, and that inspections
3 of KMC by regulatory and accreditation agencies was
likely.
4
5
6 109 Within a few days, Martinez relayed this information to his Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
supervisor, David Hill, the Director of Ambulatory Care; 9 (Martinez Depo at 113:8-
who in turn relayed it to a pathologist, Philip Dutt, and/or 114:23)
7 Defendant Harris.
8
9
110 Beginning November 28, 2006, Dr. Jadwin formally Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
10 reported his suspicions of illegal and/or unsafe care and 20 (RFA No. 35 at 8:10-14); Lee
conditions of patients at KMC – including unlicensed skull Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 20
11 flap storage, noncompliant PCCs, and an inappropriate (RFA No. 21 at 5:22-24 (DHS));
radical prostatectomy (see below) – to the Joint Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
12 Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organizations 20 (RFA No. 22 at 5:25-6:2
(“JCAHO”), the College of American Pathologists (JCAHO); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc.
13 (“CAP”), and the California Department of Health Services 267), Exh. 20 (RFA No. 23 at
(“DHS”). (“Outside WB Reports”). 6:3-6 (CAP))
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 111 On January 4, 2007, Dr. Dutt received confirmation that Dr. Jadwin Supp. Decl. (Doc. 272),
Jadwin had in fact complained to CAP about the unlicensed Exh. 2 (Dutt’s Email to
22 tissue storage and noncompliant PCCs, and shared this with Culberson of 1/4/07 at 0001330)
then-CEO Mr. Culberson.
23
24
112
25
113 4. Radical Prostatectomy
26
27
28

1 114 At 12:54 p.m. on December 6, 2006, Dr. Jadwin formally Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 10
reported to KMC leadership his concerns regarding a KMC (Jadwin’s email to Dutt,
2 patient who was scheduled for immediate radical Culberson et al. of 12/6/06 at
prostatectomy to treat possible cancer. Plaintiff had DFJ1479); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc.
3 recommended the attending physician delay the 267), Exh. 20 (RFA No. 61 at
prostatectomy because he believed the pathologic findings 13:19-25); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc.
4 of cancer were inconclusive. Instead, Plaintiff had 267), Exh. 24 (Rog 67 at 14:22-
recommended the findings be validated by outside experts. 23 (noting difficulties outside
5 reviewers had reaching
conclusions about the diagnosis)
6
7
8
9 115 Radical prostatectomies pose numerous risks to patient Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 10
care, including incontinence, impotence and other morbid (Jadwin’s email to Dutt,
factors. Culberson et al. of 12/6/06 at
10 DFJ1479)
11
116 In his report to KMC leadership, Dr. Jadwin also Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 10
12 complained of a pattern of non-transparent “peer review” (Jadwin’s email to Dutt,
being conducted against him and asked that the Board of Culberson et al. of 12/6/06 at
13 Supervisors be apprised of his concerns and initiate a DFJ1479-1480)
formal review.
14
15
117 Four minutes later, at 12:58 p.m., Dr. Dutt emailed Mr. (Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 23
16 Culberson complaining about Dr. Jadwin’s competency, (Dutt Email to Culberson dated
and insistence on outside review of numerous cases after 12/6/07 at 0001466)
17 Dr. Dutt had counseled him on failing to send a case out for
consultation. Dr. Dutt also complained about alleged “other
18 problems” involving Dr. Jadwin which he worried might
lead to loss of staff and the pathology department’s ability
19 to serve patients and doctors in a timely manner.
20
21
22
23 118 The patient ultimately decided not to proceed with the
prostatectomy.
24
119 G. COUNTS 3 & 4: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S
25 MEDICAL LEAVE RETALIATION
26
27
28

1 120 Plaintiff was eligible to take medical leave as of December Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
16, 2006 20 (RFA NO. Nos. 134-138 at
2 28:15-29:10)
3
4
5 121 Plaintiff requested and took reduced work schedule CFRA Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
medical leave from December 16, 2005 to at least March (Bryan’s Memo to Jadwin of
6 15, 2006. 4/28/06 at DFJ1152, 1154); Exh.
18 (Bryan memo to JCC at 1476-
7 1477, paras 6,7); Riskin Dec,
Exh. 1 & 2
8
9 122 Members of the JCC subsequently voted to demote Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Plaintiff, basing their decision on his unavailability due in 19 (SCO at 8:28-9:5); Lee Decl.
10 part to his medical leave. Mr. Bryan told the JCC at the (Doc. 266), Exh. 17 (JCC
removal vote: “This recommendation [for removal] is based Meeting Minutes of 7/10/06 at
11 on Dr. Jadwin’s unavailability for service because of item 10 on 0009820 to 0009821);
extended medical leaves..” Exh. 18 (Bryan’s Memo to JCC
12 of 7/10/06 at 0001476).
13
14
123 Previously on April 17, 2006, 4 months into Plaintiff’s Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 12
15 reduced work schedule medical leave, Bryan admitted to (Bryan memo to Jadwin of
Dr. Jadwin, “Yes the Department of Pathology continues to 4/17/06 at DFJ795); Bryan Depo
16 function well as it has for many years, and yes, you have at 332:12-22; Lee Decl. (Doc.
made many positive changes in the department.” Yet on 266), Exh. 14 (Bryan’s Memo to
17 April 28, 2006, Bryan ordered Dr. Jadwin onto full-time Jadwin of 4/28/06 at DFJ1152)
leave unti lJune 16, 2006.
18
19
20
21 124 Plaintiff also has direct evidence that Plaintiff’s medical Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
leave was a negative factor in the Nonrenewal 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:19-
22 114:4)
23
24
25 125
26 126 H. COUNTS 4 & 5: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S

MEDICAL LEAVE DENIAL/INTERFERENCE
27
28

1 127 On April 28, 2006, Defendant Bryan represented to Dr. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
Jadwin that he was still entitled to 137 hours of medical (Bryan Memo to Jadwin of
2 leave. 4/28/06 at DFJ1152, 1154)
3 128 Sandra Chester, Defendant County’s then-HR Director, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
testified in Depo. that Plaintiff’s request for medical leave 15 (Chester Depo at 120:1-16)
4 in his email to Bryan and herself on March 16, 2006; and
provision by Dr. Jadwin’s treating therapist, Dr. Riskin, of
5 leave certification on April 29, 2006 was timely under
Defendant County’s customary practice.
6
7
8
9 129 Dr. Riskin’s certifications notified it that Plaintiff’s Riskin Decl. (Doc. 270), Exh. 1
depression was serious enough to require a reduced work &2
10 schedule leave and regular treatment from December 16,
2005 to September 16, 2006
11
12
130 Nonetheless, Defendant Bryan denied Plaintiff reduced Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
13 work schedule medical leave, and forced him to take full- (Bryan Memo to Jadwin of
time “personal necessity leave” under the County’s leave 4/28/06 at DFJ1152); Lee Decl.
14 policy. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18 (Bryan
Memo to JCC of 7/10/06 at No. 9
15 on 001476); No. 1201.20 on
0001501; No 1201.30 on
16 0001501-1502; No. 1202.20 at
0001523-1524
17
131
18
132 I. COUNT 6: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S DISABILITY
19
DISCRIMINATION
20
21 133 1. Jadwin Was An Individual With Disabilities
22 134 Dr. Jadwin was an individual with a mental disability Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1
because of his chronic major depressive disorder. Dr. at “Diagnostic Impressions” on p.
23 Reading, Plaintiff’s forensic psychologist, diagnosed Dr. 58; Reading Decl. (Doc. 269),
Jadwin as having Major Depressive Disorder. Dr. Reading Exh. 1 at “Structured Clinical
24 also noted Dr. Jadwin reported developing depressed mood, Interview” at p. 57-58
pervasive anhedonia, suicidal ideation, sleep disturbance,
25 and other symptoms while working at KMC.
26
27
28

1 135 Dr. Jadwin’s depression limited his ability to take pleasure Reading Decl. (Doc. 269), Exh. 1
from life, and to engage full-time in, and take pleasure at “Structured Clinical Interview”
2 from, the medical work to which he had devoted his life. at p. 57-58
3
136 Likewise, Defendant County has admitted, by and through Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
4 the PMK Depo. testimony of its representative, Eugene 17 (Kercher Depo at 95:13-22,
Kercher, a psychiatrist, that it was familiar with the 96:3-8)
5 symptoms of depression and believed that Dr. Jadwin was
depressed over several years during the tenure of his
6 employment at KMC.
7
8
9 137 Plaintiff also required sinus surgery and required a few Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 7
weeks to recover from it during May of 2005. (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
10 5/31/06 at DFJ1175)
11
138 Further, Plaintiff suffered an avulsed ankle at the end of Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 7
May of 2005 that limited his ability to walk. (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
12 5/31/06 at DFJ1175)
13
139 The limitations from these physical conditions contributed Riskin Decl. (Doc. 270), Exh. 3 at
14 to Plaintiff’s limitations from his chronic depression during DFJ1814
May through the first part of June of 2005.
15
16
17 140
18 141 2. Plaintiff Was “Otherwise Qualified” Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 19
(Bryan’s Letter to DHS of
19 7/25/06 at 0001619); Exh. 18
(Bryan’s Letter to JCC of 7/10/06
20 at top of 001476 and end of
001457); Exh. 14 (Bryan’s Memo
21 to Jadwin of 4/28/06 at
DFJ01152, DFJ01155-1159,
22 DFJ01164); Exh. 16 (Nunn’s
Cover Email to Jadwin of 6/26/06
23 at DFJ01346); Exh. 10 (Bryan’s
Letter to Supervisors of 1/17/06
24 at No. 10 on 0001567)
25
26
142
27
143 3. Defendant County Knew Dr. Jadwin Was An
28 Individual with Disabilities

1 144 Plaintiff’s physician, Dr. Lempel, disclosed Plaintiff’s Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 1
depression when he faxed his medical report to KMC’s HR (Lempel Medical Report of
2 Department on November 30, 2000, around the time of 11/30/00 at DFJ00102-103 and
Plaintiff’s hire. handwritten Zoloft prescription at
3 bottom of page)
4
145 Defendant Bryan admitted knowing that Dr. Jadwin needed Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 9
5 leave because of his depression. (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
1/9/06 at 0001140); Exh. 18
6 (Bryan Memo to JCC of 7/10/06
at 0001500 & 0001506)
7
146 Dr. Riskin’s certifications stated that Plaintiff needed Riskin Decl. (Doc. 270), Exh. 1
8 medical/recuperative leave for depression from December &2
16, 2005 to September 16, 2006
9
10
147 Supervisor Watson testified in Depo. that he knew Dr. Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
11 Jadwin was in continuous need of extensions of his medical 14 (Watson Depo. at 80:22-81:2)
leave.
12
13
14 148 On April 4, 2007, during Plaintiff’s Admin Leave, Plaintiff Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
expressly notified Defendant County in writing that 4 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 4/4/07
Plaintiff was depressed and that the Admin Leave was at DFJ01619)
15 exacerbating his chronic depression.
16
17 149
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 150 4. Disability Was A Motivating Factor in Demotion, Pay Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Cut & Nonrenewal 14 (Watson Depo. at 113:15-
2 114:4); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
Exh. 18 (Bryan’s Memo to JCC
3 of 7/10/06 at top of 001476; No.
9 on 001477; and end of 001457)
4
[Lee Decl., Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes
5 of 7/10/06 meeting at ¶ 10 on
0009830-9831); Lee Opp. Decl.,
6 Exh. 7 (Patrick Depo. at 27:5-8 &
30:2-20); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
7 14 (Kercher Depo. at 99:20-
100:17); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 35
8 (Smith Depo. at 14:22-15:8); Lee
Opp. Decl., Exh. 48 (emails
9 between Dutt & Barnes of
9/14/06 at 0000830)].
10
.
11
Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 56 (PMK
12 Dutt Depo. at 243:7-11)
(sometimes appropriate to punish
13 an employee for taking medical
leave)].
14
151
15
152 J. COUNT 7: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S FAILURE TO
16 REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE
17
153 On January 9, 2006, Dr. Jadwin asked Defendant Bryan to Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 9
18 allow him to work part-time and at home while he was (Jadwin’s Letter to Bryan of
recovering from his disabling depression. 1/9/06 at 0001140)
19
20
154 Dr. Riskin, Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, certified that part-time Riskin Decl. (Doc. 270), Exh. 1
21 work was medically necessary. &2
22
155 KMC accommodated Jadwin’s disability from December Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18
23 16, 2005 to April 28, 2006 by providing him with the (Bryan memo to JCC at 1476-
reduced work schedule medical/recuperative leave and 1477, paras 6,7); Riskin Dec,
24 ability to perform work at home that he requested during Exh. 1 & 2
his meeting with Defendant Bryan on January 9, 2006.
25
26
27
28

1 156 As customary, a Locum Tenens pathologist covered

Plaintiff’s clinical pathologist duties, while Plaintiff
2 performed the remaining10-20% of his administrative
duties as Chair of Pathology.
3
4
157 As usual, if Dr. Jadwin was unable to attend to an
5 administrative duty at a particular time, then Dr. Dutt filled
in for him.
6
158 On March 16, 2006, Dr. Jadwin requested an extension of Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 6
7 his reduced work schedule leave. Dr. Jadwin submitted (Jadwin’s Request for Leave
Dr. Riskin’s certification of his continuing need for a Extension of 4/26/06 at
8 reduced work schedule within three days of learning that DFJ00157); Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s
Defendant County required it. Email to Bryan, Chester, & Dutt
9 of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752)
10
159 On April 28, 2006, Bryan refused to accommodate
11 Jadwin’s disability. Instead he forced him to take full-time
leave, and refused to hold his job open for him any longer
12 while he was on recuperative leave, and refused to allow
Dr. Jadwin to return to work until he could work full-time.
13 As a result, Dr. Jadwin was prevented continuing to carry
out his duties as Chair of Pathology.
14
15
16
17 160
18 161 K. COUNT 8: DEFENDANT COUNTY’S FAILURE

TO ENGAGE IN INTERACTIVE PROCESS
19
20 162 Defendant Bryan acted in bad faith when he unilaterally Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18
denied Dr. Jadwin’s request for continuing accommodation (Bryan’s Memo to JCC of
21 in the form of part-time work, and refused to allow him to 7/10/06 at 0001500 & 0001506);
return to work until he could work full time. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
22 (Bryan’s Memo to Jadwin of
4/28/06 at DFJ01152, DFJ01155-
23 1159, DFJ01164)
24 163 Defendant Bryan also acted in bad faith when he Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 18
represented to the JCC that Dr. Jadwin’s lack of (Bryan’s Memo to JCC of
25 communication with him led him to believe that Dr. Jadwin 7/10/06 at 0001500 & 0001506);
had essentially abandoned his job. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 14
26 (Bryan’s Memo to Jadwin of
4/28/06 at DFJ01152, DFJ01155-
27 1159, DFJ01164)
28 164

1 165 L. COUNT 9: ALL DEFENDANTS’ PROCEDURAL

DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
2
3 166 1. Direct Liability of Defendant County under Monell
4
167 The Bylaws of Kern Medical Center as in effect between Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 3
5 June 13, 2006 and October 4, 2007 (“Bylaws”) provided for (Bylaws at 11599 - 11601 etc.)
due process for core physicians in numerous scenarios like
6 loss of hospital privileges, but not for (i) removal of
physicians from department chairmanship, (ii) placement of
7 physicians on administrative leave, or (iii) nonrenewal of
physician employment contracts with Defendant County.
8
According to Bylaws Section 12.2 GROUNDS FOR
9 HEARING, due process is provided in the following
situations:
10 “A. Denial of medical staff membership.
B. Denial of requested advancement in staff membership
11 status, or
category.
12 C. Denial of medical staff reappointment.
D. Suspension of staff membership or clinical privileges for
13 more than
thirty (30) days in any twelve (12) month period.
14 E. Demotion to lower staff category or membership status.
F. Summary suspension of staff membership or clinical
15 privileges for
more than fourteen (14) days.
16 G. Revocation of medical staff membership.
H. Denial of requested clinical privileges.
17 I. Involuntary reduction of current clinical privileges.
J. Termination of all clinical privileges.
18 K. Involuntary imposition of significant consultation or
monitoring
19 requirements (excluding monitoring incidental to
provisional status
20 and Section 7.3).”
21 The due process afforded by the Bylaws in the above cases

is robust, e.g., Bylaws Section 12.3-1 NOTICE OF
22 ACTION OR PROPOSED ACTION.
23 168 The Board of Supervisors of Defendant County ratified the Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267),
Bylaws on December 13, 2004. Patrick depo, 40:1-4); Lee Supp.
24 Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 1 (Board
of Supervisor Minutes of
25 12/13/04 at p. 4, item 20); Lee
Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 3 (Bylaws
26 at 0011529)
27
28

1 169 When the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
adequate due process in connection with the Demotion, 20 (RFA Nos. 219-221 at 45:3-
2 Admin Leave and Nonrenewal, they were acting pursuant 21); Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267),
to the Bylaws. Exh. 10 (Bryan Depo, 258:12-16)
3
4
170
5
171 2. 42 U.S.C. 1983 Requirements
6
172 It is incontrovertibly established that “Any acts or Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
7 omissions of the individual Defendants were under color of 19 (SCO at 9:22-23)
law.” See Scheduling Order, 9:22-23.
8
9 173
10 174 3. 14th Amendment Elements
11
175 4. Demotion & Paycut
12
176 Plaintiff’s employment contract expressly set forth a Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County (Jadwin Employment Contract,
13 that Plaintiff would receive Base Pay of $287,529, and that p.2, 20)
Plaintiff would be chair of KMC’s pathology department.
14
15
16
177 Moreover, the employment contract barred Defendant Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
17 County from reducing Plaintiff’s Base Pay, removing 20 (RFA No. 227 at 46:22-26);
Plaintiff from chair or terminating or otherwise modifying Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
18 the Contract at will, without cause, or without Plaintiff’s (Jadwin Employment Contract at
consent. DFJ164, DFJ165, DFJ168,
19 DFJ169)
20
178 Defendant County has not removed a department chair Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
21 without cause since at least October 2000 20 (RFA No. 227 at 46:22-26)
22
23
24 179 Defendants County and Harris told Plaintiff several times Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
that the Demotion “necessitated” the Paycut, and that he 20 (RFA No. 228 at 46:27-47:3);
25 would have to agree to it to continue working at KMC. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 3
(Barnes email to Lee of 9/15/06
26 at DFJ1390); Lee Decl. (Doc.
266), Exh. 20 (Harris Letter to
27 Jadwin of 9/1/06 at DFJ1383)
28

1 180 Having no other choice, Plaintiff executed the Paycut Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
amendment to his employment contract. 18 (Jadwin depo, 1025:4-7); Lee
2 Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
(Amendment No. 1 to
3 Employment Contract dated
10/3/06)
4
5
6
7
181 Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiff’s Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
8 contractual interest in Base Pay, as evidenced by the 3 (Barnes Letter to Lee of 9/15/06
numerous reminders by Defendants Bryan and County that at DFJ1390), Lee Decl. (Doc.
9 Plaintiff would have to expressly amend his employment 266), Exh. 20 (Harris Letter to
contract to implement the Paycut resulting from his Bryan of 9/1/06 at DFJ1383)
10 Demotion.
11
12
182 There was nearly a month gap between the time Defendant Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 15
13 Bryan informed Plaintiff he was initiating demotion (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
procedures to the time the JCC voted to demote Plaintiff. 6/14/06 at DFJ1181); Lee Decl.
14 (Doc. 266), Exh. 17 (JCC
Minutes of 7/1/06 at 0009820-
15 0009821, item 10)
16 183 Defendants never notified Plaintiff of the time or place of Jadwin Supp. Decl. (Doc. 272),
the JCC vote to demote Plaintiff, gave him an explanation para 3
17 of the evidence against him, or provided him an opportunity
to tell his side of the story,
18
19
184 Before the JCC vote occurred, Plaintiff sent a letter to Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Defendant County legally challenging the Demotion. 2 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 6/29/06
20 at DFJ1349)
21
185 Nor did Defendant County ever offer Plaintiff a post- Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), para 4,
22 deprivation hearing. Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 17
(JCC Minutes of 7/1/06 at
23 0009820-0009821, item 10)
24
25
26
27
28

1 186 More importantly, the JCC did not constitute an impartial Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 17
tribunal since it comprised individuals who had been (JCC Minutes of 7/1/06 at
2 harassing and retaliating against Dr. Jadwin and/or 0009819); Jadwin Decl. (Doc.
individuals on whom Dr. Jadwin was blowing the whistle. 265), Exh. 1 (Jadwin email to
3 Bryan of 2/28/05 at DFJ355); Lee
Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 8 (Bryan
4 email to Harris of 11/8/05 at
0000503); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
5 Exh. 11 (Ragland email to Bryan
of 2/23/06 at 0000507); Jadwin
6 Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 5 (Jadwin
memos to Smith of 3/23/06); Lee
7 Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 13
(Ragland depo, 332:14-21)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
187 Nor was Defendant Bryan – who invited Plaintiff to contact Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 15
him, and only, him regarding the Demotion he himself had (Bryan Letter to Jadwin of
18 instigated – an impartial adjudicator given his demonstrated 6/14/06 at DFJ1181); Lee Decl.
bias against Plaintiff. (Doc. 266), Exh. 16 (Bryan Letter
19 to Jadwin of 6/26/06 at
DFJ1346); Lee Decl. (Doc. 266),
20 Exh. 17 (JCC Minutes of 7/1/06
at 0009821); Jadwin Decl. (Doc.
21 265), Exh. 1 (Jadwin email to
Bryan of 2/28/05 at DFJ355); Lee
(Ragland Depo at 332:14-21);
23 Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 8
(Bryan email to Harris of 11/8/05
24 at 0000503); Lee Decl. (Doc.
266), Exh. 11 (Ragland email to
25 Bryan of 2/23/06 at 0000507)
26
188
27
189 5. Admin Leave
28

1 190 Plaintiff’s employment contract expressly set forth a Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 2
mutually explicit understanding with Defendant County (Jadwin Employment Contract, at
2 that Plaintiff would be paid Professional Fees. DFJ00154, DFJ00156)
3
191 Defendant County was subjectively aware of Plaintiff’s Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 21
4 contractual interest in Professional Fees, as evidenced by (Culberson Letter to Jadwin of
the then-CEO’s letter to Plaintiff regarding the Paycut. Mr. 9/20/06 at DFJ01398)
5 Culberson explained that, as a demoted staff pathologist
with a drastically reduced base salary, Plaintiff would
6 nevertheless be able to take advantage of his reduced
administrative duties in order to increase his Professional
7 Fees-based income.
8
9
10
11
192 Mr. Culberson participated in the decision to to place Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Plaintiff on Admin Leave, which denied Plaintiff the 22 (Rog. No. 42, 28:3-9)
12 opportunity to earn Professional Fees.
13
14 193 Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff any pre- or post- Jadwin Decl. para 5; Lee Decl.
deprivation procedure when placing him on Admin Leave. (Doc. 266), Exh. 24 (Culberson
15 Letter to Jadwin of 12/7/06 at
DFJ01482)
16
194 When Defendant County sent a letter to Plaintiff placing Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 24
17 him on Admin Leave, the letter stated only that the Admin (Culberson Letter to Jadwin of
Leave was “pending resolution of a personnel matter”. 12/7/06 at DFJ01482)
18
19
195 At no time did Defendants County or Harris inform Jadwin Decl. para 6; Lee Supp.
20 Plaintiff of the nature of the charges against him, give him Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 4 (Lee
an explanation of the evidence against him, or provide him Letter to Barnes of 4/4/07 at
21 an opportunity to tell his side of the story. DFJ01619)
22
23 196 Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Defendant County refused to respond. 4 (Lee Letter to Barnes of 4/4/07
at DFJ01619)
24
25 197 Since 1995, only one other department chair at KMC had Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
ever been placed on administrative leave in excess of 1 22 (Rog. No. 27, 19:23-20:6)
26 month.
27
28

1 198
2 199 6. Nonrenewal
3 200 Defendant County customarily renews the contracts of all Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
of its KMC medical staff. 22 (Rog. No. 28, 20:8-21);
5 201 When Plaintiff asked Defendant County to identify all Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
members of the KMC medical staff – which comprises 22 (Rog. No. 28, 20:8-21
6 roughly 60 full-time faculty physicians at any given time –
who had employment contracts which were not renewed
7 during the period from October 24, 2000 to the present,
Defendant County was able to name only one doctor.
8
9
10
202 At no time did Defendant County inform Plaintiff of the Jadwin Decl. para 8
11 nature of the charges against him, give him an explanation
of the evidence against him, or provide him an opportunity
12 to tell his side of the story.
13
14 203 Defendant County denies that anyone even participated in a Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
decision not to renew Plaintiff’s employment contract. 21 (Rog No. 45, 53:16-20
15
16
204 Even when Plaintiff protested the lack of due process, Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
17 Defendant County refused to respond. 7 (Lee Letter to Wasser of 5/1/07
at DFJ1703-DFJ1704); Jadwin
18 Supp. Decl. para 4; Jadwin Decl.
para 13
19
205
20
206 F. SEVENTH DEFENSE: 2 YEAR SOL
21
207 Defendant County itself admits that no relevant event Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
22 occurred on or before January 6, 2005. 23 (Rog. No. 5, 5:17-25)
23
24
208
25
209 G. EIGHTH DEFENSE: ADMINISTRATIVE
26 EXHAUSTION
27
28

1 210 Defendant County admits that Plaintiff has Exh.austed his Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
administrative remedies as to all claims except for the new 20 (RFA1 at 4:23-27); Lee Supp.
2 FMLA/CFRA/FEHA retaliation claim added via the Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 23 (Rog.
Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 7, 2008 No. 6, 6:1-3); Lee Supp. Decl.
3 (Doc. 241). (Doc. 267) para 7
4
5 211 Plaintiff Exh.austed his CFRA & FEHA Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267) para
oppositional/participation retaliation claims by filing a 7
6 timely complaint with the California Department of Fair
Employment & Housing (“DFEH”) on September 3, 2008,
7 and obtaining a right to sue letter that same day.
8
9
10 212
11 213 PERSONS
12 214 Defendant Bryan was the Chief Executive Officer at KMC Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
from September of 2004 until September of 2006. 19 (SCO at 7:4-6); Lee Supp.
13 Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog
No. 11 at 9:20)
14
215 Eugene Kercher, M.D. was the President of KMC Medical Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
15 Staff from July 2004 to June 2006, and a member of the 19 (SCO at 7:7-10); Lee Supp.
JCC Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog
16 No. 11 at 9:4-5)
17 216 Defendant Irwin Harris, M. D., was Chief Medical Officer Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
at KMC from July of 2005 to September of 2007 , and a 19 (SCO at 7:11-14); Lee Supp.
18 non-voting member of the JCC. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog
No. 11 at 10:24)
19
20 217 Jennifer Abraham, M.D. was Immediate Past President of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
KMC Medical Staff during 2004-2006, and President Elect 19 (SCO at 7:15-17); Lee Supp.
21 in July 2006 to December of 2007 Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog
No. 11 at 9:4, 9:7, 10:2, 10:6)
22
23 218 Scott Ragland, D.O. was President-Elect of the KMC Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Medical Staff from 2004-2006, Chair of the Quality 19 (SCO at 7:18-21); Lee Supp.
24 Management Committee, and a member of the JCC. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh. 21 (Rog
No. 11 at 9:3, 9:6, 10:1, 11:3-4)
25
26
27
28

1 219 Toni Smith was the Chief Nurse Executive of KMC, and a Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
member of the JCC 19 (SCO at 7:22-24)
2
3
220 William Roy, M.D., was Chief of the Division of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
4 Gynecologic Oncology at KMC. 19 (SCO at 7:25-27)
5
6 221 Marvin Kolb, M.D. was former Chief Medical Officer at Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
KMC who left in September of 2004. 21 (Rog No. 11 at 9:21)
7
8
9 222 Phillip Dutt, M.D., became Chair of Pathology at KMC in Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
August of 2006 21 (Rog No. 11 at 10:16)
10
11
223 David Culberson was Interim Chief Executive Officer from Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
12 September of 2006 to May of 2007. 21 (Rog No. 11 at 10:22)
13
14 224 Paul Hensler became Chief Executive Officer at in May of Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
2007. 21 (Rog 11 at 10:23)
15
16
17 225 Gilbert Martinez was and is the Manager of Laboratory Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
Services at KMC. 9 (Martinez Depo at 10:2-7)
18
19
20
21 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
22
226 Beginning January 2006, Defendant County did not pay Decl. of Eugene Lee in
23 Plaintiff for the days he did not work. Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment
24 (“Lee Opp. Decl.”), Exh.
Bryan’s Memo to JCC of
25 7/10/06 at 0001476); Rizzardi
Decl. (Doc. 271) at Table 6
26 showing dramatic Plaintiff’s
earnings decrease starting
27 1/17/06.
28

1 227 Bryan testified that testified that “actual functioning of the Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 3 (Bryan
department of [pathology] actually was fairly good” as of Depo at 332:12-22).
2 April 17, 2006.
3
4 228 Plaintiff testified several times that Bryan had ordered him Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 2 (Bryan
off of part-time and onto full-time medical leave on April Depo at 249:24-250:19; Exh. 4
5 28, 2006 so as to burn up Plaintiff’s medical leave (Jadwin Depo. at 384:9-13); Exh.
entitlement. Bryan’s Depo. testimony did not refute this. 5(Jadwin Depo. at 983:23-984:1,
6 94:23-985:4).
7
229 According to Defendant County’s verified response to Lee Supp. Decl. (Doc. 267), Exh.
8 Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 42, Harris participated in the 21 (Rog No. 42 at 52:24-53:2).
decision to place Plaintiff on Admin Leave.
9
10
11 230 On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Kern Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 15 (Lee
County counsel Karen Barnes (“Barnes”) which was Letter to Barnes of 6/29/06 at pp.
captioned “Re: Preservation / no spoliation of evidence 1 and 2).
12 Jadwin v. County of Kern, Peter Bryan, et al.”. This letter
pre-dated the Demotion of July 10, 2006 by almost a
13 month.
14
231 Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter to Barnes of June 29, 2006 Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 15 (Lee
15 outlined in detail Plaintiff’s pending claims for Letter to Barnes of 6/29/06 at pp.
whistleblower and medical leave retaliation and disability 1 and 2).
16 discrimination and formally demanded Defendant County
take all appropriate affirmative steps to preserve evidence
17 relating to those claims, including “notes taken at meetings
with or concerning Dr. Jadwin”.
18
232 On March 29, 2007, Plaintiff’s counsel again sent a letter to Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 16 (Lee
19 Barnes stating, “I would like to remind you that KMC is Letter to Barnes of 3/29/07 at p.
under a strict legal obligation to preserve and prevent 2).
20 spoliation . . . .”.
21
233 Barbara Patrick is a former Chair of the Kern County Board Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 7 (Patrick
22 of Supervisors and member of the JCC who voted to Depo. at 22:2-12; 26:20-27:3).
demote Plaintiff.
23
24
25 234 At Plaintiff’s 8/19/08 Depo. of Patrick, she testified that she Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 7 (Patrick
had taken notes at every JCC meeting. Depo. at 70:8-73:7).
26
27
28

had shredded all of her documents upon leaving office on Depo. at 70:8-73:7).
2 January 8, 2007.
3
had thrown out documents which included JCC meeting Depo. at 70:8-73:7).
5 agendas on the margins of which she had taken notes.
6
7
237 At Plaintiff’s 8/19/08 Depo. of Patrick, she testified that Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 7 (Patrick
8 Kern County counsel had never contacted her regarding Depo. at 70:8-73:7).
preservation of documents and evidence in connection with
9 Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
10
11 238 Defendants failed to produce a single JCC meeting agenda Lee Opp. Decl., para. 6; Exh. 17
in response to Plaintiff’s numerous discovery demands. (RPD No. 44 at 20:15-21).
12
13
14 239 At Plaintiff’s 8/19/08 Depo. of Patrick, she was able to Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 7 (Patrick
recall very little in the absence of her spoliated notes about Depo. at 75:16-78:19).
15 the JCC meeting at which the Demotion was approved.
16
17
240 David Culberson is former CEO of KMC who decided to Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
18 place Plaintiff on Admin Leave. (Culberson Depo. at 10:13-16;
10:23-11:1).
19
20
241 At Plaintiff’s 8/21/08 Depo. of Culberson, he testified that Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
21 he had taken notes at each of up to 10 meetings of the KMC (Culberson Depo. at 42:24-47:9).
“leadership team” regarding Plaintiff and the Pathology
22 department.
23
24 242 At Plaintiff’s 8/21/08 Depo. of Culberson, he testified that Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
Culberson destroyed those notes prior to January 2007, by (Culberson Depo. at 42:24-47:9).
25 shredding them, ripping them up, crumpling them up and
throwing them in the trash.
26
27
28

no one ever contacted him regarding preservation of (Culberson Depo. at 42:24-47:9).
2 documents and evidence in connection with Plaintiff’s
lawsuit.
3
4 244 At Plaintiff’s 8/21/08 Depo. of Culberson, Culberson – in Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
the absence of his spoliated notes – was unable to recall (Culberson Depo. at 61:7-19;
5 important details regarding the allegations against Plaintiff 63:4-6).
that led to the Demotion as related to him by Harris.
6
7
245 At Plaintiff’s 8/21/08 Depo. of Culberson, Culberson – in Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
8 the absence of his spoliated notes – was unable to recall (Culberson Depo. at 102:16-21;
important details regarding the HR director’s investigative 98:4-15; 99:2-10).
9 findings as to disruption and chaos in the Pathology
department at the end of 2006 just prior to the Admin
10 Leave.
11 246 At Plaintiff’s 8/21/08 Depo. of Culberson, Culberson – in Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 11
the absence of his spoliated notes – was unable to recall (Culberson Depo. at 160:23-
12 important details regarding Dr. Dutt’s investigative findings 161:2; 159:9-13; 157:15-158:4).
regarding Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct at the end of 2006.
13
14
247 Scott Ragland is the former President of the Medical Staff Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
15 and member of the JCC (“Ragland”). Depo. at 8:23-9:10).
16
17
248 Ragland testified at his 8/22/08 Depo. that no one ever Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
18 contacted him regarding preservation of documents and Depo. at 61:10-25).
evidence in connection with Plaintiff’s lawsuit
19
20
21 249 Ragland testified at his 8/22/08 Depo. that he deleted all of Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
his emails, including emails relating to Plaintiff, and Depo. at 63:13-23).
22 sneered at Plaintiff’s consternation over the spoliation
23
24 250 At Ragland’s 8/22/08 Depo., he sneered at Plaintiff’s Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
consternation over the spoliation of evidence. Depo. at 63:13-23).
25
26
27
28

Ragland had investigated Plaintiff just prior to the Admin (Culberson Depo. at.73:9-18).
2 Leave.
3
4 252 Ragland testified at his 8/22/08 Depo. that he produced Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
only a single document in all of discovery in this action, Depo. at 69:21-71:1).
5 and even that was not in response to any request from an
attorney (as he never received one) but on his own
6 initiative.
7
253 At Ragland’s 8/22/08 Depo., he was able to recall very little Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 9 (Ragland
8 in the absence of his spoliated documents about material Depo. at 23:13-24:24).
events.
9
10
11 254 At the Depo. of PMK Eugene Kercher, he testified that Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 14 (Kercher
KMC did not renew John Digges’ employment contract Depo. at 27:1-12).
because Digges was asking for an unacceptable salary
12 increase.
13
14 254 Plaintiff testified on 10/21/08 that he would have accepted Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 6 (Jadwin
renewal of his contract as of October 4, 2007, albeit under Depo. at 1096:9-14; 1096:22-
15 protest over his demoted status and reduced Base Pay. 1097:3).
16
17
255 Dr. Philip Dutt, Acting Chair of Pathology, testified as Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 12 (Dutt
18 PMK for the County on 8/29/08 that by the Monday Depo. at 10:5-24).
following Thanksgiving 2006, he had had a conversation
19 with Harris regarding Plaintiff’s statement to Martinez that
“he was going to report the hospital to JCAHO, CNPS [sic]
20 . . . either the Friday before Thanksgiving that year or the
Monday after that weekend.”
21
256 Dr. Philip Dutt, Acting Chair of Pathology, testified as Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 12 (Dutt
22 PMK for the County on 8/29/08 that he had suggested to Depo. at 13:1-14:6).
Harris that KMC retain someone who had experience with
23 CAP inspections to conduct a mock unannounced
inspection. Harris quickly approved Dutt’s proposal on
24 either the Friday or the Monday before Thanksgiving 2006.
25 257 JCC minutes regarding the contemplated demotion of the Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 18 (JCC
chair of the OB-GYN department stated: “The problem is Meeting Minutes of 9/10/07 at
26 we have tied a portion of the chair’s compensation to that Agenda Item 6 on Bates
position, that is a property right. Dr. Perez is entitled to due 0009221).
27 process hearing for this reason.”
28

1 258 Paragraph 139 (“Disciplinary Actions”) of the Manual Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 19 (Kern
states in relevant part: County Policy & Administrative
2 Procedures Manual at Section
“Any employee may be dismissed, suspended, reduced in 139 (Disciplinary Actions) and
3 rank and/or compensation, reprimanded or otherwise 139.6 (Administrative Leave with
disciplined for any action or conduct which in the Pay) on Bates 0016940-16941).
4 judgment of the appointing authority provides good
cause for discipline under the Civil Service Rules or other
5 laws, regulations, or policies [. . . .] .6 Administrative Leave
with Pay. A department head may place an employee on
6 administrative leave with pay if the department head
determines that the employee is engaged in conduct
7 posing a danger to County property, the public or other
employees, or the continued presence of the employee at
8 the work site will hinder an investigation of the
employee’s alleged misconduct or will severely disrupt
9 the business of the department [. . . .]”. (emphasis added).
10 259 At his Depo. of 8/25/08, Watson testified that Defendant Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson
County decided not to renew Plaintiff’s contract in Depo. at 110:12-111:5; 111:15-
11 retaliation for his filing the instant lawsuit. Watson was 24).
asked twice if he recalled clearly that this was the case and
12 each time he answered yes:
13 Q. Okay. What about the nonrenewal? I

mean, do you recall Dr. Jadwin’s physical
14 absence being a reason for his nonrenewal
of his contract?
15 A. Well, it could be that. It could be the fact
that I think by then he was -- probably was
16 suing us. So why would you want to
establish a contractual relationship with
17 somebody who’s suing you.
Q. Okay. Well, he was also suing you at the
18 time of his removal or actually at the time
of his --no, he wasn’t. He wasn’t. Okay. But
19 I mean, you say why would you establish a
contractual relationship with someone
20 who’s suing you, right?
A. Right.
21 Q. Was that -- does that mean -- are you
just speculating now, just guessing, or was
22 that a consideration for his nonrenewal?
A. Well, I remember it being discussed.
23
[…]
24
Q. Okay. But you recall it being discussed
25 at the JCC meetings?
A. Yes.
26
27
28

1 260 At his Depo. of 8/25/08, Watson re-affirmed a third time – Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson
volunteering it on his own initiative – that oppositional Depo. at 113:15-114:4).
2 retaliation was an additional motivating factor for the
Nonrenewal:
3
Q. So the question is: You’ve mentioned that for the
4 nonrenewal one of the reasons was that Dr. Jadwin wasn’t
available for work; is that correct or --
5 A. My understanding was that he had -- he had been on
medical leave, family leave, and had requested even more
6 leave, and that for that reason and the fact that he was suing
us, that we decided not to renew his contract.
7
8 261 Defendants claim Watson gave confused testimony and Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 10 (Watson
suggest that his testimony regarding Nonrenewal was Depo. at 12:10-14; 13:17-14:2).
9 likewise confused even though the allegedly confused
testimony is elicited by a completely different line of
10 questioning regarding Demotion that occurs over 100 pages
and 2 hours earlier in the Depo. transcript.
11
262 Bryan could not have “granted” Plaintiff 90-day personal
12 necessity leave because he never asked for it. His request
for extension of leave of absence of March 16, 2006 was
13 for extension of his reduced work schedule medical leave.
14
15 263 Plaintiff’s request of March 16, 2006 for leave extension
requested an extension of reduced work schedule leave, as
established by Plaintiff’s later submitted medical
16 certification.
17
18 264 Plaintiff’s leave extension request of March 16, 2006 asked Jadwin Decl. (Doc. 265), Exh. 6
for extension of Plaintiff’s protected medical leave, not (Jadwin’s Request for Leave
19 personal leave. Extension of 4/26/06 at
DFJ00157); Exh. 4 (Jadwin’s
20 Email to Bryan, Chester, & Dutt
of 3/16/06 at DFJ00752); Lee
(Chester Depo at 120:1-16)
22
265 Defendants’ own Separate Statement (Doc. 259) admits, Defendants’ Separate Statement
23 Plaintiff’s letter to Bryan of May 31, 2006 was requesting (Doc. 259), DMF 23
more time to decide whether he would be returning full-
24 time or resigning. It was not requesting more leave past
September 16, 2006. [DMF 23]
25
26
27
28

1 266 The prostatectomy patient ultimately elected not to proceed Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 52
with prostatectomy based on the second set of biopsies (Shertudke Depo. at 42:17-20)].
2 recommended by Plaintiff coming back negative for cancer.
3
4 267 Disability Was A Motivating Factor in Administrative Lee Decl. (Doc. 266), Exh. 22
Leave. (Amendment No. 1 to
5 Employment Contract dated
10/3/06 at “Assignments” on
6 DFJ01420); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh.
58 (Pathologist Chair Phlip Dutt
7 employment contract amendment
no. 1 of 10/10/05 at
8 “Assignments” on Bates
0026200; Exh. 59 (Pathologist
9 Savita Shertukde employment
contract of 11/1/05 at
0026248; Exh. 60 (Pathologist
11 Gian Yakoub employment
contract of 6/19/07 at
0026193.
13
[Lee Decl., Exh. 17 (JCC
14 Minutes of 7/10/06 meeting at ¶
10 on 0009830-9831); Lee Opp.
15 Decl., Exh. 7 (Patrick Depo. at
27:5-8 & 30:2-20); Lee Opp.
16 Decl., Exh. 14 (Kercher Depo. at
99:20-100:17); Lee Opp. Decl.,
17 Exh. 35 (Smith Depo. at 14:22-
15:8); Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 48
18 (emails between Dutt & Barnes
of 9/14/06 at 0000830)].
19
Lee Opp. Decl., Exh. 56 (PMK
20 Dutt Depo. at 243:7-11)
(sometimes appropriate to punish
21 an employee for taking medical
leave)].
22
See DMF 69-190 re Defendants'
23 pattern and practice of subjecting
Plaintiff to smear campaign
24 continued on Jadwin's return
from medical leave on October 4,
25 2006.
26
27
28

1 268
2
3
4 269
5
6
7
8 270
9
10
11
12
13 Date: December 1, 2008
14
/s/ Eugene D. Lee
15 LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE LEE
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 3100
16 Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 992-3299
17 Fax: (213) 596-0487
email: elee@LOEL.com
18 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


282 D MSJ - Opp - SS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

282 D MSJ - Opp - SS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 282 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 1 of 115

1 Eugene D. Lee (SB#: 236812)

5 Attorney for Plaintiff

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 DAVID F. JADWIN, D.O., Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00026 OWW TAG

12 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT

15 Defendants. Date: January 12, 2009

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 5. Responsibilities and duties DFJ00046 See evidentiary objections.

4 6. Second Employment 0001479- Undisputed.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 7. Letter to Peter Bryan DFJ00723 See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 9. Sandi Chester effectively Chester See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 16. KMC’s responsive DFJ00747 See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

19 Chester admitted in Depo. that Plaintiff’s email to Bryan

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

7 21. Bryan noted that he gave Bryan See evidentiary objections.

19 It should be noted that the “issues” within the Pathology

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 22. Memo from Bryan to Bryan See evidentiary Objections

13 Disputed that it was not a disciplinary meeting. [Lee Opp.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 23. A letter to Bryan from Bryan See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 25. Bryan artfully explained Bryan See evidentiary objections.

17 Moreover, this responsibility to “influence” policies and

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 a) Responsibilities and duties DFJ00046 See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 29. According to Exhibit Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 30. By June 2006, Jadwin Bryan See evidentiary objections.

18 31. Adherence to the Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

9 33. Memorandum to the Joint 0001476- See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 34. Ray Watson (hereinafter Watson See evidentiary objections.

17 Watson then re-affirmed a third time – volunteering it on

19 Q. So the question is: You’ve mentioned that for the

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 35. Watson testified that he Watson See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 a) Kern County Board of Decl. of See evidentiary objections.

21 38. Plaintiffs’ attorney Bryan See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 40. Letter from David DFJ01398 Undisputed.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 44. Exhibit 644 is an e-mail Jadwin See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

9 Plaintiff’s testimony is unrefuted: Defendant Bryan

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

4 48. Approved Cancer 0000623- See evidentiary objections: Irrelevant to excusing

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 52. In an e-mail to Peter DFJ00784 Undisputed.

7 53. Notes of meeting with DFJ00788 See evidentiary objections:

11 54. E-mail to Peter Bryan DFJ00793 Undisputed.

16 55. Gilbert Martinez, the Martinez See evidentiary objections.

Π’S RESPONSIVE STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO

1 a) CAP conducts routine Martinez See evidentiary objections.