A former UMC resident physician won a $6.5 million verdict against his former for wrongful termination earlier this month in federal court.
Dr. Joseph Papin sued UMC, Vice-Chancellor Dr. Louann Woodward, Dr. T. Mark Earl*, and several John Does in 2017 in U.S. District Court after UMC fired the resident physician.** The John Does are UMC employees.
Dr. Papin graduated from the University of Mee-chigan Medical School in 2015 and "matched" with the UMC residency program in 2016. The drama began on December 6, 2016 when Dr. Papin was on-call. He asked his Chief Resident around noon if he could go for a run around campus if he took his pagers and cellphone with him. The Chief Resident texted in reply he could do so.
The resident was on-call on December 15 when things started getting squirrely. The complaint states:
On December 15, 2016, Dr. Papin was on-call. At around 3pm, when all was quiet, Dr. Papin again texted his chief resident asking to go for a run with his pagers. The chief resident responded “Excuse me?” and Dr. Papin replied “I didn't go.” The chief resident responded “Like exercise?” and Dr. Papin replied “I'm asking though, haha. Everything is done on my end.” The chief resident responded “Are you fucking kidding me?” and Dr. Papin replied “Yes.” The chief resident responded “I will give you all the reasons why that is not ok later but #1 is you're first call.”The text was the first warning something might be amiss for Dr. Papin at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
Dr. Papin was part of a team treating a paralytic patient. The physician noticed scar tissue on the patient's back that looked like it originated from a healing bed sore. The complaint claims the team was aware of the sore and treated it "on or before" December 11, 2016 with a topical treatment. However, the patient began running a "mysterious fever." The wound team and Dr. Papin checked the back on December 22 and observed there was little change in the scar tissue. The topical treatment continued.
Dr. Papin flew to Florida the next day for a scheduled holiday. Although the resident was gone, the patient was not forgotten. Another doctor peeled back the scar tissue and "examined the sore more closely," discovering it was more severe than previously evaluated by the team. The bedsore was surgically removed.
A formal remediation plan awaited Dr. Papin when he returned from Florida. Dr. Earl accused the resident of several infractions in the plan such as
* Lying about patient care
* Leaving hospital during duty hours to exercise. "A dereliction of duty."
* "Unwillingness to help with tasks"
* Talking down to nurses and residents
* "Poor inter-professional communication."
The remediation plan gave the resident 60 days to show significant improvement in his performance. UMC decreed he was subject to various punishments such as probation, repeating his year of training, non-renewal of his contract, and immediate termination.
Once Dr. Papin signed the remediation plan, Dr. Earl immediately suspended the young doctor and ordered him to undergo a fitness examination and drug testing.
The complaint states the medical tests cleared the resident but Dr. Earl kept him on administrative leave because Dr. Earl filed an "HR complaint" against his resident. Dr. Earl fired the plaintiff on February 20, 2017. Dr. Papin lawyered up and chose to use the administrative appeal process at UMC.
UMC did not provide a hearing date until after the plaintiff notified the medical center of his intent to sue on June 14. Dr. Papin claimed he was denied due process at his hearing as he was not allowed to question any witnesses nor use his lawyer in the hearing. The complaint charged:
During this hearing, Dr. Earl introduced testimony and other evidence about a host of matters that had never before been identified as a basis for termination or other discipline.
56. Among other things, it was alleged – for the first time – that Dr. Papin had behaved inappropriately toward a female coworker. The person making this allegation was a man who claimed that a female co-worker – who he refused to identify – had told him that Dr. Papin made her feel uncomfortable. He had described this to Dr. Earl, and it evidently formed a secret basis for Dr. Papin's termination.
57. It was alleged – for the frst time – that Dr. Papin was not truthful about the work he did before rounds. This allegation had also evidently formed a secret basis for Dr. Papin's termination.
58. It was also alleged that Dr. Papin had exchanged angry words with another employee on one occasion at the beginning of his residency. This allegation had also evidently formed a secret basis for Dr. Papin's termination.
59. These three allegations – among others – had never been presented to Dr. Papin as a basis for his termination, and he had no opportunity to respond to them before he was terminated by Dr. Earl.
60. In addition, the opportunity to respond presented by the post-termination hearing was inadequate because, among other things, Dr. Papin was forbidden from eliciting any testimony other than his own.
Dr. Woodward "ratified" Dr. Papin's firing.
The complaint states UMC violated its own procedures and Dr. Papin's contract when it terminated his employment. UMC's disciplinary policy for medical residents spelled out in a series of steps: informal remediation, formal remediation plan, probation, and termination. There is an exception for behavior that seriously compromises patient care or creates a hostile work environment. However, Dr. Papin argues the remediation plan he signed was a binding contract. The formal remediation plan stated he had sixty days to show substantial improvement but Dr. Earl ignored the plan when he immediately suspended Dr. Papin after he signed the plan.
The complaint charged UM with breach of contract, violating the Mississippi Constitution and state law, violating Dr. Papin's due process rights, discrimination & retaliation, and Section 1983 violations.
The case meandered through discovery and the expected summary judgment motions until an eight-day trial finally took place this month. The jury found for Dr. Papin and awarded him damages of $1.56 million and punitive damages of $5 million. Total damages are $6.56 million.
U.S. District Judge Kristi Johnson presided over the case.
* Dr. Earl is the program director of the general surgery residency program at UMC.
** Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Joel Dillard, Ryan Morgan (FL), Greg Schmitz (Fl), John Waits, Julie Pavlos (FL), Martin Jellife. All attorneys but Mr. Dillard are employed at Morgan & Morgan.
Attorneys for defendants: Cal Mayo, Jr., Thomas Whitfield, John T. Kitchens, John Mauldin, Katherine Smith, Paul Watkins, and special guest star Robert Greenlee.
47 comments:
Physicians tend to be terrible administrators/managers, especially terrible physicians.
Sounds like UMMC needs to retain M&M.
lol fk UMC
What do you do if you are a terrible physician? You become an administrator/manager.
Pay it out of the $775,000,000.00 ole miss endowment fund. Ole Miss doesn’t seem to be doing anything else with it!!!!
It’s a pattern of bad behavior and race was also a factor even though you go to great pains to always hide the racial aspects of every story that you report.
If you graduate last in your class in medical school you become a hospital administrator.
God complex is real.
@9:12am - That’s to pay Kiffin and the players.
What a lucky schmuck. Sounds like he deserved to get fired but UMMC didn't go through the proper procedures, so his "due process" was violated.
Why didn't UMMC hire a real law firm?
NO tort reform for the Doctors, huh?
Why didn’t they hire a real president also?
Another entitled millenial who considers his jogging more important than patient care.
Dr. Earl is a good guy. The upper management-not so much, and that's being nice. This encourages bad behavior and frivolous litigation. This guy Papin should have been fired.
I don't see what you seem to see, 10:31@10:20. Looks like cooked up 'hidden personnel file fabrication' to me but was peripheral (in its content) to the trial itself. The validity of the suddenly appearing documentation wasn't in question. The fact that it suddenly existed, was a basis for termination and the employee had never heard of it WAS in question and was remarkably questionable and a violation of the employer's due process.
A written, mutually signed performance improvement plan is a business contract and is, as we see, enforceable in a court of law. These 'managers' who were anxious to fire him thought they were all knowing and couldn't wait to hand the man a cardboard box. If they didn't like him and felt it best to terminate his employment, there are safer and legally defensible ways to go about that process. Two things 'managers' (at all levels) typically fail to do: Consult competent HR and consult company lawyers - both having expertise in Employment Law.
Hospitals and law firms are full of people with God-Complexes walking the halls.
It's too bad his lawyers got 40% of the award, but without them, he would have gotten nothing.
This case took years to work up. Look at all the plaintiff lawyers involved.Imagine all the depositions and discovery time. Hours on end. It took eight days to try and weeks of preparation before then. Punitive damages are not recoverable from a state entity. the plaintiffs attorneys lost their ass when it comes to put meaningful money in their pocket.. And then there is aleays the delay and additional expense of an appeal. Bet when it is over plaintiff attorneys won't pocket a dime.
This dude needed to be fired! I thought MS was a right to fire state! Just because he was fired from his residency doesn’t mean he can’t be a Dr! Medical school and residency isn’t the time or place for everyone to get a participation trophy!I wouldn’t want this guy near me for any type of medical treatment much less surgery! Looks to me this dude got this verdict on a technicality and didn’t deserve crap!I think UMC and Dr Earl deserve our appreciation for keeping the next Christopher Dunch, AKA Dr Death from doing harm to his patients!
Punitive damages are not permitted against the state under state (Mississippi Tort Claims Act)) or federal law (§1983). I would assume judgment will be amended to reflect that.
Surprised to see so many doctors and lawyers posting on this blog.
Quick! Run to Federal court.
The Federal court loves to punish Mississippi!
UMMC has like 9,000 employees. They could justify at least one personnel lawyer to do things right. But of course they can't even add up your hospital bill.
11:36 and 12:04, any idea why Judge Johnson let the issue of punitive damages go to the jury if punitive damages cannot be assessed against the State ? Is the punitive award recoverable against the individual defendants (Dr Woodard and Dr Earl)even though they were acting in the course and scope of their employment with the State at the time ?
12:28, deservedly so in many cases
You can always count on a couple of jealous leghumpers to find a way to express their envy for the success of Ole Miss football on a story that has absolutely nothing to do with sports.
UMMC employees have no confidence in its leadership. Retaliation is expected if a person speaks out.
When will there be a leadership change at UMMC?
#1. Losing 10s of millions a month to BC/BS
#2. About to be out of network with divisions of Medicaid
#3. About to shell out 6.5 million to a fired resident.
1:33, the judgment is against UMMC only, and not against the individual defendants, so I am not sure why the judgment includes punitives which are not recoverable against the state.
As in workman's comp cases, the roadblock to punitive damages disappears in cases where willful violations exist. And I'm not even a lawyer.
1:33
11:36 here
The only think I can think of is judicial incompetency-
@1:33 - "Dr Woodard and Dr Earl even though they were acting in the course and scope of their employment with the State at the time?"
They're not protected for actions deemed against the law. But isn't there a $500 grand cap each? Bueller?
...."not recoverable against the state." WTF are you talking about? It's federal court.
5:11, Sorry, but federal law doesn’t allow punitive damages against a state. That the case in federal
court is irrelevant. I’ll gladly stand corrected if you can provide authority to the contrary
.
This is what happens when people get drunk on a little bit of power and think the rules don't apply to them.
In my experience, it's not uncommon with administrative agencies. I expect to get slam-dunked at the hearing, make a good record, and then (hopefully) get it reversed on appeal. I've seen that scenario play out first-hand more than once.
The jury simply smelled a good ole boy scheme to fire someone without putting in the work to get the goods on the good doctor in a professional manner.
"As in workman's comp cases, the roadblock to punitive damages disappears in cases where willful violations exist. And I'm not even a lawyer."
You could have left that last sentence off. We could tell law isn't your profession.
@ 1:33 probably let the jury find for punitive so the 5th circ wouldn’t have to remand for a retrial if they allow punitive damages after appeal … cuts out unnecessary litigation if the appeal by UMMC is unsuccessful (and if the appeal is successful doc just doesn’t get the punitive damages)
Name some other cases where the state had to pay punitives.
8:32 - He/she didn't need to be an attorney to be correct. Willful negligence and intentional bad acts do seem to open a new door in Workers' Comp and Wrongful Termination situations. It would appear YOU might be the one who needs to brush up:
https://www.lunsfordbaskin.com/is-workers-compensation-the-exclusive-remedy-in-mississippi-job-injury-claims/
@6:06pm
But if he sued the individuals, aren't they liable for punitive damages civilly?
3:01, hate to break it to you, this was not a worker’s comp case. Read the complaint. Nowhere is the workers comp statute mentioned because it wasn’t a worker’s comp case. I suggest you do some “brushing up.” Worker’s comp law doesn’t apply to contract disputes and wrongful termination claims. There was no personal injury due to employment which implicated the worker’s comp statute.
6:37, the judgment was not rendered against the individual defendants, only against UMMC. Punitives are not available under federal or state law against state agencies. Therefore no punitives can be recovered. In addition punitive damages are not available under federal civil rights law against government employees sued in their official capacities. Punitive damages may be awarded against such employees sued in their individual capacities. Punitive damages are not available under state law against state and local government employees acting in the course and scope of employment because such employees are immune from personal liability with limited exceptions, such as malice. But the bottom line, in this case rhe judgment only awarded damages against UMMC.
@3:01 am
Again, workers comp has absolutely nothing to do with the UMMC case, but that website you cite is wrong in stating reckless employer conduct is outside the scope of the exclusive remedy provision. Exclusive remedy applies unless employer actually intended to injure the employee. Perhaps the lawyers that run that website need to brush up on the law.
8:08/9:36 - Try to pay attention. There was no claim by the poster that this is or was a work comp case. Work comp was used as a peripheral comment. If you two paid even minimal attention, you would have read that the comment said, "As in the case of work comp..." It's my contention that the same applies in this wrongful termination lawsuit where there was intentional malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Prove me wrong rather than simply posting smarmy insults.
9:36 - You've obviously (by showing your ignorance) never handled, as counsel or participated, as an employer, in a work comp situation where the employer's intentional acts of negligence over-ride state law as regards comp as a sole remedy. There need be no effort to prove the employer wanted to injure the employee (that was nonsense on your part), only that it did not care whether or not injury occurred.
As an example: If an employer has been cited by OSHA and/or internal audit for violating regulations by altering the forks of a lift truck by welding extensions to them and has decided to tell OSHA or its own staff auditors to fuck off...and, as a result, an employee is injured due to that violation, you can bet your ass the employee can sue beyond comp....whether or not the employer 'intended injury'.
The same holds true in a situation of known faulty electrical wiring or railings where citations have been issued and the employer decides to ignore regulations and shows no intention to correct.
Sounds as if you attended a seminar and didn't pay attention.
Clearly, the decision makers at UMC did not seek - or they ignored - the advice of competent HR professionals and employment law counsel.
You don't change your story after the fact. Period. That's HR 101. Firing someone for one set of allegations, only to later say 'disregard our original story, here are the REAL reasons we fired him', is the same as saying "Hey everyone, I'm a liar!"
The only question is, did you lie about the original allegations, or are you lying about the new ones? Or both? Nothing you say will have any credibility. Your true motives are now in question.
What a stupid, stupid reason to make a former employee a millionaire. UMC really dropped the ball on this one. But the headline will make a GREAT ad for Morgan & Morgan!
12:03: Yep. In administrative lingo I believe that’s called “arbitrary and capricious.”
Imagine that. A group of Emergency Medicine physicians who fancy themselves as masters of healthcare, politics, and administration. Delusions of grandeur seem to be a consistent personality trait in that specialty.
To close this loop… punitive damages are not allowed against the state in tort cases due to the MTCA. This was a breach of employment contract case and the state of Miss has waived sovereign immunity for breach of contract cases. Therefore, no sovereign immunity applies to the punitive damages award here and it will very likely stand. I’m sure UMMC will try to appeal, but if the federal judge allowed jury to decide it then it was because there was no case law or statute saying no punitive damages against state entity in a breach of contract case. If there was, then they wouldn’t have allowed it to even go to the jury. UMMC had this coming IMO. I bet some of the jury members had BCBS coverage and are not happy with UMMC to begin with. Either way, still a great result for the resident as employment cases in Miss (conservative) are tough to win! I also believe because it was “willful” that they’ll have to pay the residents attorney fees? Not sure though
I know the inside story on this case. UMMC wrongfully fired a first year surgical resident stating that he was a " danger to patients and a sexual harasser". Try getting another residency spot with those references? UMMC finished this residents medical career.
However, UMMC's lies came apart during discovery and at trial. Their defense was built on a foundation of lies. Nobody in this blog raises the real reason the program director fired Dr. Papin. However, the jury saw it.
I have been a trial lawyer for 30 years in Chicago, where I represented Hospitals and physicians in medical malpractice cases before going on the other side. This is what happens when defendants and defense witnesses lie in a courtroom and the hospital knowingly backs those lies. Regular people sit on juries at great inconvenience to themselves. The jury's verdict revealed what it thought of UMMC's "defense".
Post a Comment