FILED

18 JUN 04 PM 3:48

1 KING COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT CLER
2 E-FILED
CASE NUMBER: 1&-2-141-4&0 SEA
3

7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
8 IN AND FOR THE COUN'IY OF KING

9 TIEN THACH, M.D. NO.

JO Plaintiff, CO:MPLAINT

11 v.

12 MATRIX ANESTHESIA, P.S., a

Washington corporation; SEAl'l KL'lCAID,
13 M.D., an individual person;JOHN
COSTELLO, M.D., an individual person;
14 JOHN DOES I-XX, individual persons,

15 Defendants.

16 Tien Thach, M .D., by and through her attorneys, FREY BUCK, P.S., alleges the fhllowing

17 facts and causes of action against the above-named defendants as follows:

18 I, PARTIES

19 Plaintiff Ti en Thach, M.D. ("Thach") is a resident of Bellevue, King County,

I.I
20 Washington.
21 Defendant Matrix Anesthesia, PS. ('Matrix") is, on information and belief, a
1.2
22 \\/ashington Corporation doing business in King County, Wm;hington.

23 1.3 Defendant Sean Kincaid, M.D. ("Kincaid") is, on infonnation and belief, aresident

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPLA.L'IT • I 1200 Flt't':-l A VENU:E., 5 UITE 19::0
SEA TILE, YVA 98101
P. (206)486-8000 f (206) 902-9660
 of Snohomish County, \Vashington. Dr. Kincaid is a shareholder and the Chief Executive Officer

2 of Matrix. Dr. Kincaid is also a member-at-large of Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen, a division of

3 Matrix.

4 l.4 Defendant John Costello.MD (" Costello'") is. on information and belief, a resident

5 of King County, Washington. Dr. Costello is a member of Matrix Anesthesia Corporation and

6 acts as ilS Chief Financial Officer. Dr. Costello is also the President of Malrix Anesthesia

7 Overlake.

8 1.5 John Does 1.-XX are currently unknown corpomle leaders of Matrix who were

9 involved in and/or approved the wrongful corporate actions described herein.

10 IL JURISDICTION ~'ID VENUE

11 2.1 This court has jurisdiction over this matter because Matrix Ane.~thesia, P.S. is a

12 closely held corporation headquartered and transacting business in King County, Washington.

l3 Upon information and belief l\fatrix, Costello, Does and Dr. Thach all reside, work, and may be

14 found iu King County, Washington; defendant Kincaid worh in King County.

15 2.2 Venue in the Superior Court of King County, Washington is proper because all acts

16 and omissions giving rise to plainllffs claims occurredrn Krng County, \vashington.

17 m. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18 3.1 Plaintiff Tien Thach, M.D., was originally employed by Matrix on October 3, 2010.

19 Matrix has two div,sions Matrix Anesthesia Overlake ('MAO'"), serving Over! ake Hospi ta! and

20 Medical Center in Bellevue, Washington and Matrix Anesthesia Evergreen ('MAE") serving

21 Evergreen Hospital in Kirkland, Washington. Dr. Thach worked in the MAO division, originally

22 as an employee and later as a shareholder of Matrix.

23 3.2 In August of 2013. the MAO divisional board asked Dr. Thach to accept the role of

COMPLAINT· 2
FREY BUCK, P.S.
1200 F!F'lH AVENUE, SUITE l'DO
SEA !TIE, WA 98101
P. (206) 486-8000 F (200) 902·-0
 l;[AO' s D1v1sional Compliance a'ficer. Dr. Thach accepted the role. She was elected to the

2 position of MAO Board Treasurer on August 25, 2016 for a two-year term from 2017 to 2019.

3 3.3 Dr. Thach's responsibilities as the divisional compliance officer included

4 addressing p<llential legal and practice-related compliance issues. Despite these responsibiliLie,.;,

5 the Matrix board informed Dr. Thach thal she was nol permitted lo contact corporate legal counsel

6 with questions or concerns. Contact with Matrix counsel was expre;.sly limited to the CEO and

7 CFO. Dr. Thach was informed that thi~ rule was enacted by Defendant Kincaid a~ president of

8 Matrix.

9 3.4 On October 18, 2016, a 11·1AO divisional meeting included a presentation by

10 Defendant John Costello, M.D. and Dr. Dave Knoepfler, then the Chief Medical Officer of

11 Overlake Hospital. Defendant Costello and Dr. Knoepfler announced that a new administrative

l2 position, Medical Director of Surgical Services, had been created al Overtake, and moreover, that

13 Overlake hoped Defendant Costello would accepl the p<>sition.

14 3.5 The Medical Director nf Suq,,ical Services salary struc lure described by Defendant

15 Coslello concerned Dr. Thach in her role as compliance officer. Defendanl prop<,sed splitting his

16 time between !he two positions; halftime a., an MAO anesthesiologist, and the other half in the
17 administrative role. However, Defendant sought to retain his full-time anesthesiologist salary of

18 approximately S500,000. Because the new p<>sition included a $150,000 stipend, and half-time

19 anesthesiology work would net approximately $250,000, Dr. Knoepfler sugges1ed Matrix should

20 support Costello in the new poiition; Costello subsequently specifically indicated that Lo support

21 him in the new position MAO would have to make up the difference of approximately $100,000

22 in his prospective lost wages annually. Plaintiff was concerned that this financial ammgement

23 risked running afoul of anti-kickback statutes.

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPLAINT. 3
1200 FIFTH A VENUE, 5 UITE 19J0
SEA TILE, WA 98101
P. (20<:i) 486--8000 f (20<:i) 902-9ti60
 3.6 On October 25, 2016, Dr. Thach brought her concerns related to the new medical

2 director position salary structure to Matrix Corpornte Compliance Officer Raphael N. Rodriguez,

3 M.D., in accord with proper procedure and to assure transparency. Dr. Rodriguez confirmed that

4 defendant Costello was a.<;king Matrix 10 contribute approximately $100,000 to allow him 10 take

5 the new position without suffering a decrease in his usual earnings. Dr. Rodriguez reported that

6 Matrix Counsel Lee Thorson previously approved a similar ammge ment for two MAE

7 anesthesiologists, and that Mr. TI10rson's blessmg would be sought for the Costello arrangement.

8 Satisfied with Dr. Rodriguez's response, Dr Thach d,d not pursue the matter further.

9 3.7 One of the two MAE anesthesiologists receiving a ,;imilar financial contribution lo

lO the one proposed by Defendant Costello i,, on information and belief, Defendant Sean Kincaid,

11 M.D., who serves as Medical Staff Vice President at Evergreen Hospital.

12 3.8 In January 2017 Dr. Thach attended the American Society of AnesthesiologisL~

13 Prnctice Management conference in Dallas, Texa.s in her role as divisional compliance officer. On

14 the last day of the conference, she attended a session entitled '"Anti-Kickback Slalule.s/Stark Law

15 Lecture" presented by Marc Vezina, Esq. The pre.senlation provided detailed information on anri-

16 kickback rules and appeared to at lea.st potentially impact the proposed medical director position

17 that Dr Thach had earlier chscussed with Dr. Rodriquez. The presentation rekindled Plaintiffs

18 concerns that the arrangement could expose the group to legal liability given the proposed salary

19 "contributions" required to make up Defendant Costello's lessened earnings in the new position.

20 Dr. Thach, seeking to maintain confidentiality and to protect the group, anonymously approached

21 the presenting attorney at lecture's end to generally describe her concerns. She provided no

22 identifying information regarding the group.

23 3.9 The presenting allorney informed Dr. Thach that she had good reason to be

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPLA.INT • 4
1200 F!FT'rl AVENUE, SUlTE 19J0
SEA TILE, \VA 98101
P. (206) 486-8000 F (206) 902-9<:i<SO
 concerned over the arrangement, and suggested that she have the group re-evaluate the

2 arrangement LO assure it was not exposing itself to potential sanction.

3 3.10 On January 30, 2017, pursuant lo her fiduciary duties as compliance officer and a.~

4 a shareholder of Matrix, Plaintiff contacted Dr. Rodriguez to again express her concern over the

5 legality/propriety of the medical director ammgement given the information she had gleaned al the

6 conference. Dr. Rodriguez expressed concern, as~umed responsibility for all further investigation

7 and follow-up, and accepted Dr. Thach' s offer to provide the presenting attorney's contact

8 information. Dr. Thach took no further action believing Dr. Rodriguez had the aulhority to

9 properly investigate and cure any potential impropriety.

lO 3.11 On March 28, 2017, ,vilhout warning and prompted by her report to Dr. Rodriguez,

ll Dr. Thach was publicly allacked al a Matrix Corpornte Board meeting. Defendants Kincaid and

12 Costello displayed a PowerPoint presentation through which they accu,ed plaintiff of a broad

13 range of "wrongdoing." Sigmficantly, both defendant,; were personally involved in salary

14 supplement arrangements with Matrix that were the cause of Dr Thach', anti-kick-back concerns,

15 as properly presented to Dr. Rodriguez. Each defendant realized personal gain from lhe

16 arrangements. The defendants' presentation was factually inaccurnte and knowingly false. It

17 directly impacted Plaintiff in her profession. Defendant, accused Dr. Thach of several alleged

18 misdee,k

I9 • Bypm;sing the board and circumventing normal issue-escalation procedure;

20 • Acting on a "personal agenda";

21 • Failure to fulfill fiduciary duties to serve in the corporation's best interest and,

22 • Impennissibly seeking outside legal counsel and ignoring the advice of "trusted

23 legal counsel."

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPLAINT· 5 1200 F!Fnl A VENUE, SUITE 19J0
SU ITU:, WA "8"".&1
P. (206) 466·8000 F 1206)?02·9660
 I 3.12 Defendants' assault on Dr. Thach's character failed to address the tmth of her

2 actions - that she had expres.'>"-d legitim:lle concerns through lhe appropriate corp<'lr"dle structure

3 that the group's agreements with O.erlake and fa,ergreen Hospitals may be in violation of anti-

4 kickback laws. Defendanls fur!her failed 10 expre;;s or in anyway recognize that it was Dr. Thach' s

5 fiduciary duty lo address such potential problems in her role a.\ divisional l"ompliance oilicer and

6 that it was in her interest as a shareholder of the corpomtion to bring to light and avoid potential

7 corporate i mpmprieties.

3.13 Plaintiff had received no warning that such attack was coming; defendants

9 presented her with no opportunity to fairly refute the fab;e accusations.

JO 3.14 On April 3, 2017, Corporate Compliance Chairman Rodriguez told Dr. Thach she

ll had indeed followed proper protocols by escalatmg the matter to him, and that he "got in trouble"

12 with Defendant Kincaid for investigating the mailer. Dr. Rodriguez indicated that he would soon

13 step down from the corporation's compliance office.

14 3.l 5 On April 5, 2017, the final board meeting minutes were published, but in deviation

15 from standard prnctke, were made available lo MAO members only by written request, and then

16 only via hard copy. Dr. Thach had previously provided a detailed wrinen response to the

17 inaccumte minutes and the unfounded attack. by defendan!s: the approved minutes provided no

18 reference lo her facts and corrections. Instead, the minutes simply reported that Plaintiff

19 "disagreed" that her efforts were inconsistent with her duties, and that she had presented "reasons"

20 for her disagreement Tire minutes did not provide the shareholders with notice of the potential

21 problem presented by the salary enhancement anangement.

22 3.16 Shocked at the allack by the defendant~ as corpornte leaders and their manipulation

;!3 of the corporn.te structure lo intimidate and oppress her in her role as divisional compliance officer

COMPLAINT· 6 FREY BUCK. P.S.

1200 FIFTH A Vl!:?-:\JE, SUITE 1500
SSA rrwt, WA 98101
l' . 1206)48<>-BOOO F 12Do/902,9e,,,0
 I and a shareholder of the corp<>ration, Dr. Thach be.lieved she had no alternative but lo proffer a

2 le lier of resignation from her positions as MAO Treasurer, Matrix Corporale Board Member, and

3 MAO Division Compliance Officer. Dr. Thach subsequently mmed her focus to the care of her

4 patient,.

5 3.17 Dr. Thach remained an active and engaged shareholder; exercising her shareholder

6 right, and responsibilities, she continued to voice her opinions about issues surrounding the proper

7 governance of the group. Her slalemenLs as a shareholder of the organization were frequently

8 contrary to the defendants' positions on varions issues but unifonnly presented in a respectful and

9 appropriate manner.

IO 3.18 Among the issues facing the corpomtion was a potential sale of the corporation to

J1 an outside org.mization. Corporate leadership, including Costello and Kincaid, strongly supported

J:! the sale. Dr. Thach expressed her opinion to other shareholders that the terms of the sale would

13 not benefit the group in the long term. On information and belief, Matrix corporate officers

14 working lo secure approval of the sale of the group to the outside company were to receive

15 significant personal bonuses from the purchasing company, in addition lo their share value. On

16 information and belief, Defendants Cos1ello and Kincaid were working to achieve the sale and

17 stood to benefit from it beyond their individual share values.

18 3.19 In addition, on information and belief the payout to individual shareholders in the

19 event of a sale to the outside company would increa,;e if the total number of shareholders were

20 reduced. Accordingly, defendant~ would individually benefit by reducing the number of

21 shareholders.

22 3.20 In January '.W18, according to the group's tradition, Dr. Thach began to plan a

23 retirement party for a fellow shareholder. Defendant CosteUo responded lo her communications

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPL.. INT • 7 1200 F!FTH AVENUE, SUITE 19JO
SEA TIU:, WA 98101
P (2Ge) 486-8000 F. (206) 902·-0
l with factual inaccuracies and inconsistent in.~tructions in an a!tempt to dissuade her efforts. Other

2 shareholders subsequently noted the propriety of Dr. Thach's approach and its consistency with

3 prior group practice. Defendant O,stello nevertheless steadfastly hewed to his inaccurate position

4 and directed the issue away from the board's consideration. Defendant Costello's resistance took

5 the character of retaliatory, personal allack bereft of factual support - much like the earlier

6 PowerPoinl defamation.

7 3.21 On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff was told by J:JA0's scheduler that the MAO Board

8 intended to call her out of service for an impromptu" meetmg" The warning stated that Plainhff

9 would be pulled from the operating room in the middle of the morning on January 26 to altend a

10 meeting with Dr. Dorothy Ling: and Dr. Guy Kuo, rather than at an official board meeting:. Dr.

11 Thach located Dr. Ling on January 26 and inquired after the meetmg's purpose: Ling responded

12 that it was a "friendly meeting for advice."

13 3.22 Dr. Thach was concerned about the aberrant meeting demand given her past

14 treatment by the defendants and the Ma1rix board. To help avoid any new surprise a!lacks and to

15 support fairness and !ransparency, on January 26, 2018 Dr. Thach delivered a written message lo

16 Defendant Costello slating Iha! she was concerned about attending impromptu meetings and would

17 not subject herself 10 another unprovoked surprise al!ack. Instead, she requested written

18 notification of any planned meetings, including an agenda or al least some indication of the topic

19 and the names of those expected to a!!end. Plaintiff also requested advance notice so that she could

20 invite counsel lo al!end if possible and stated that she wished "to fully cooperate .. and attend any

21 public or private meetings."

22 3.23 On March 13, ~018, the Matrix board responded by terminating Dr. Thach's

23 employment, effective immediately. The Board subsequently sent a message to all shareholders

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPL\INT. 8 1200 FIFTH A VENUE, SUITE 19}0
SEA TIU, WA 9Sl01
P. (206) 486-8000 F. (206) 0 02-%60
 openly suggesting her termination wa.~ 1he result of clinical failures or activities conuary to the

2 interests of the corpomtion. On information and belief, the mei;sage wa., written by and/or

3 approved by Defendants C<>stello, Kincaid and/or Does. The statement was utterly and knowingly

4 false.

5 3.24 On information and belief, Defendants subsequently started rumors that Plaintiffs

6 termination was due to a "drug problem", that it was premised upon an alleged threat made by

7 Plaintiffs long-time companion, and that the companion had attempted to "hack" the group's

8 common posting wall. All of these allegation., are wholly unfounded.

9 3.25 Matrix Anesthesia, P.S. and the Matrix board are responsible for ,folalions of

10 Washington law related lo corporate governance, fiduciary obligations, and minority shareholder

ll rights. Defendants' actions also constitute the tort of Outrage and have defamed Dr. Thach in her

12 professional endeavors.

J3 3.26 On March 13, 2018. Dr. Thach received an anonymous letter from "The Matrix

14 Board" informing her lltal hershareholder righLs had been terminated. In terminating Dr. Thach' s

15 shareholder rights, defendants Matrix, Kincaid, Costello and Does I-XX violated the corporation's

16 bylaws. The termination was beyond the authority of the board and unauthorized under the bylaws.

17

18 IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

VIOLATION OF CORPORA TE BYLA \VS
19
4.1 Dr. Thach, as a shareholder of the corporntion, was entitled to the right~ and
20
privileges of a shareholder as described in the L'Orpomte bylaws.
21
4.2 Defendants orchestrated the deprivation of Dr. Thach's rights under the bylaws by
22
depriving her of her shareholder status in violation of the corporation's bylaws.
23
4.3 The wrongful deprivation of Dr. Thach' s shareholder status has caused and will
FREY BUCK. P.S.
COMPLAL"ff. 9 1200 FlFTH AVENUE, SUITE 19:JO
SU !Tl..£, \~A 98101
P. (206)486-8000 F. (206)902·%60
 - - - - - - - - ~ · - - ______,_.,.

continue to cause her injury.

2 v. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY, DUTY OF GOOD FAI1H
3 A."liD FAm DEAL:r"<IG

4 5.1 Defendants Kincaid, Costello and Does as rorpomte officers had a fiduciary duty

5 to the corporn.tion and ils shareholders and a duty of good faith and fair dealing; Matrix had a duty

6 to lreal minority shareholder Thach reasonably and fairly and ac1ed solely through its corpornte

7 governance structure overseen by defendants Kincaid, Costello and Does.

8 5.2 Defendants violated ihese duties by ignoring legitimate sharehol.der concerns,

9 intimidatmg shareholders. violating shareholder protections ensconced in the corporation's bylaws

IO and stifling intra-shareholder communication. Defendants further violated their duties by

11 relaliating aiainst plaintiff for her effun lo bring potentially si:,Jnificant legal j,.~ues to !he

12 corporation furinvestigation and evaluation.

13 53 Defandanls acted oppressively and in bad faiih through pervasive intimidaling and

14 retaliatory auacks upon Dr. Thach engineered to protect their own interests over those of the

15 corporation and in subversion of Dr. Tiiach's shareholder interests.

16 On information and belief, defendants Kiucaid, Costello and Does afao acted for

J7 the benefit of !heir pernonal inlerests over !hose of Dr. Thach in further violation of their fiduciary

18 duty.

19 5.5 Defendant Matrix also had a duty lo treat minorily shareholders fairly and not

20 interfere with shareholders' rights and benefits as owners of the company unreasonably.

21 Defendant Matrix violated those duties.

22 5.6 As a re,1,ull of the violations of these dutie.~ Dr. Thach has and continues to be

23 injured.

COMPLAfNT. to FREY BUCK, P.S.

1200 F!F'!H A VENUE, SUITE: 19'.lQ
SIA TT!.Er WA 98101
P (20<>) 4&i-,8000 F. (20o) 902·'.i<l<iO
l VI. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTIO~:
:MINORITY SHAREHOLDER OPPRESSIO~
2
6.l The pattern of intimidation and retaliation by Defendants Costello, Kincaid, Does
3
and Matrix against Dr. Thach while she served the MAO board as its treasurer and compliance
4
officer and a~ a board member of the ·Matrix board was burdensome, harsh and wrongful. This
5
conduct continued well after Dr Thach' s resignation from the board and impacted her rights as a
6
shareholder. Defendants' improper oppression eventually led to the usurpation of Dr. Thach's
7
shareholder status and the unfounded deprivation of her rights and benefit~ as a shareholder.
8
Defendants' acts were not for the benefit of the corpomtion, but mther were for the benefit of
9
individual rnrpomte officers at the expense of a minority shareholder and in retaliation for Dr.
JO
Thach' s exercise of her rights and responsibilities as a shareholder.
11
6.2 Defendants' efforts to diminish Dr. Thach and her diligent investigation of potential
12
anti-kickback statute violations by both Defendant\ are incontrovertible evidence of a lack of
13
probity and fair dealing in the affairs of Matrix Anesthesia, lo the prejudice of its members.
14
6.3 Defendants' ambush of Dr. Thach in front of her peers on the Matnx board and
15
defamatory statements regarding her actions violated standards of fair dealing and fair play on
16
which every shareholder is entitled lo rely.
17
6.4 Defendants' conduct meets or exceeds the standards of minority shareholder
18
oppression in Washington Srate.
19
6.5 As a result of the defendants' oppressive and wrongful con duct, Dr. Thach has and
20
continues lo be injured,
21
vn. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIOS: WHISTLEBLO\VER
22
7.l Defendants' conduct as described in this complaint constituted retaliation for Dr.
23
Thach's effo1t to evaluate and investigate potential corporate misfeasance.
FREY BUCK, P.S.
COMPLAINT· l I 1200 FlF!H AVENUE, SUITE 19JO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P (20<,) 486-8000 F (206) 902-9<:itiO
 I 7.2 Dr. Thach's efforts were driven by her duty to the corporation as divisional

2 compliance officer and as a shareholder of the corporation.

3 7.3 Defendants actions are in violation of legal protections afforded whistleblowers

4 7.4 Defendants' wrongful actions have caused and continue to cause injury to Dr.

5 Thach.

6 vm. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIO'.'I: OUTRAGE

7 8.1 Defendants deprived Dr. Thach of her shareholder status as a result of her efforts

8 to protect Matrix and iL, shareholders from potential legal exposure under anti-kickback statutes

9 and for voicing her opinions and opposition to defendants' corporate leadership Defendants'

10 behavior was exlreme and oulrageous, in violation of fiduciary responsibilities and uuer!y

Il intolernb!e in a civil society.

12 8.2 Defendants intentionally or recklessly intlicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

13 subjecting her, unannounced and wi thou! warning, to a direct, humiliating, unfounded and personal

14 attack in front of the Matrix board in retaliation for her act of exerci.sing her responsibility as a

15 divisional compliance officer and share.holder lo assure that the corporation was not opernling in

16 contrnvenlion of the law.

17 8.3 Defendants intentionally or reckles.,ly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach

18 through relentless intimidation and character assassination even after they constructively removed

19 her from her elected positions of trust a~ the MAO trea"urer and a member of the Matrix board.

20 8.4 Defendants intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress on Dr. Thach by

21 retaliating against her for pointing out potential legal incongruities in the corporation's business

22 affairs, voicing her opinion contr.rry to corporate leadership and, on information and belief, in their

23 effort lo personally gain through the direction of corpornle affairs at the expense of Dr. Thach.

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COl'v!PLAINT- 12
1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 1500
SEA ITU:, WA 98101
P. (20<i) 4!16-8000 F. (20<i) 902-9660
 8.5 Defendants' behavior is reprehensible and goes beyond all possible bounds of

2 decency, II is atrocious and uuerly inlolernble in a society where laws and regulations exisl 10

3 specifically protect the public from corpornte malfeasance and de,:eplion,

4 8,6 Dr, Thach has suffered and continues to suffe.r severe emotional distress caused by

5 defendants' extreme and outrngeous acts and behavior,

6 IX. SI}.'TH CAUSE OF ACTION: DEFA."\IATION /FALSE LIGHT

7 9, 1 Defendants ex posed Plaintiff Tien Thach, M,D,, to ridicule and injury to her

8 reputation by publicly and impmpedy castigating Dr, Thach in front of all MAO shareholders,

9 suri,,,ical colleagues, nursing co-workers, and staff at Overlake Hospital Medical Center, the Retinal

lO Surgery Center, and Proliance Highlands Surgical Center, v.ithoul factual basis and Jmov.1ng Iha!

ll the charges and allegations were false,

12 9,2 Defendanh further exposed Plaintiff to ridicule and injury lo her reputation by

13 immediately terminating her employment and publicly informing others that the termination was

14 necessary due to either a clinical issue or behavior that was contrnry Lo the corporation's interests.

15 bases that the defendants knew lo be false,

16 9,3 These acts constitute defamation per se as they have impacted Dr, Thach in her

17 professional capacity,

18 x. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19 Plaintiff Tien Thach, M,D,, prays for the following relief:

20 DL-;.<;0lution of the corporntion pursuant to RCW 23BJ4,300;

21 Special and general damages in an amount to be pr<>ven at trial;

22 3, Cosls and fees: and

23 4. All other relief a\ lhe Court deems j usl and equitable.

FREY BUCK, P,S,

COMPLA.INT • 13
1200 nrru AVENUE, surr;:; 1910
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P (206)486-8000 F (206) 902-9660
 1

2 DATED this 11 th day of April, 2018.

3
FREY BUCK, P.S.
4

5
B v·/~
,·-----------
Ted Buck, WSBA #22029
6
Attorney for Plnint!f{
7

IO

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

FREY BUCK, P.S.

COMPUI.INT ~ 14
1200 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 19JO
SEATTLE, WA 98101
P (206) 486-8000 F (206) 902-9660