Kia Franklin

Docs Disciplined for Reporting Negligence Concerns about Colleague

If there’s one thing that tort deformers and civil justice advocates should be able to agree upon, it is that something must be done to reduce preventable medical errors and negligent medical practice. If the rare few offending doctors were appropriately disciplined, they would not have an opportunity to create more victims of medical malpractice.

This LA Times article outlines the troubling story of a doctor who remains practicing and was only minimally disciplined, despite numerous complaints from colleagues, medical staff, and patients, and despite several troubling incidents over the last ten years. An excerpt (warning: not for the faint of heart):

Late one April night, the first of Sarah Valenzuela's twins arrived with little trouble, but the second stayed put.

Though the baby was not in distress, Kaiser Permanente perinatologist Hamid Safari attached a vacuum extractor to the boy's head to draw him out. Again and again he tugged, but still the baby would not come.

He vigorously shook the vacuum, up and down, side to side, according to government documents and hospital incident reports.

It took 90 minutes and six tries -- the last with Safari on his knees, pulling. Horrified staffers -- and the boy's father -- looked on as baby Devin finally emerged. His skin was a bloodless white, his neck elongated and floppy.

His spinal cord had been severed.

Safari lashed out at a nurse. "What did you do to that baby? I gave you a good baby," he said, according to a complaint letter the nurse sent to her union representative.

Staffers at the Fresno birthing center were devastated and angry -- and not just because of the twin lost that night in 2005.

Over the years, doctors and nurses repeatedly had complained to higher-ups -- including Kaiser's top medical officer in Northern and Central California -- about problems they saw in Safari's skills and behavior, according to interviews and documents. (Read full article)

In fact, asserting their concerns about their colleague's conduct only created conflicts on the job and a sense from the administration that the only disciplinary action that would result from such complaints would be directed at the complainants themselves, not the offending doctor. A staff memo stated that "targeting an individual practitioner is counterproductive and discourages the cooperative, harmonious and respectful work environment that the medical group expects and encourages."

Apparently this work environment is more important than patient safety and upholding the high standard of medical care that characterizes the majority of the profession. Medical professionals who complained have filed a lawsuit for what they believe is retaliation, including sanctions like reduced pay and short suspension of the complaining doctors. Meanwhile, the doctor whose actions were the focus of these complaints only had the scope of his practice limited. He remains practicing and has not received further discipline, according to the LA Times.

I can't see how a response like this will do anything but discourage medical professionals from speaking up when doing so is necessary to protect the health and safety of their patients, and the integrity of their profession. What a tragedy.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 12:06 PM, Oct 16, 2007 in Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


Kia: One guess as to why one cannot be rid of bad employees or contractors. Correct. Employment law land pirates would sue the hospital or clinic into kingdom come.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 16, 2007 9:21 PM

I am not sure what a "tort deformer" is, unless it's the folks who fund and run this site. The true civil justice advocates in this society are the tort reformers and groups such as HALT who want to clean up the legal "profession"

Posted by: Paul W Dennis | October 16, 2007 9:43 PM

Thanks for giving us a classic example of tort deform rhetoric.

Limiting individual victims' access to the courts and remedies under civil law--what tort "reform" does-- has nothing to do with cleaning the legal profession and everything to do with shielding business groups from public scrutiny and legal liability. If this is civil justice, than I'd hate to see civil injustice.

True civil justice advocates want to hold all wrongdoers accountable, not just unscrupulous lawyers (who should most definitely be disciplined if they're shafting their clients) but also willfully polluting corporations, manufacturers that knowingly sell harmful products to the public, and yes, negligent doctors.

Posted by: Kia | October 17, 2007 10:02 AM

Kia: The biggest tort deformers in the world are the lawyers. They keep their victims from access to the courts, by their self-dealt immunities. These are the immunities of George III, and justify violent self-help by precluding any recourse for injuries from lawyer carelessness.

I want you to say openly, you would support a statute ending the obstacles to legal malpractice claims by adverse third parties. Or else, go ahead, persist in your self-dealing hypocrisy.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 17, 2007 5:33 PM

I'll agree w/ you on the issue because I actually agree with it, not because of these accusations of "self-dealing hypocrisy" which are frankly a little out there.

As to your question, yes, I would support removing obstacles to legal malpractice claims by adverse third parties. Victims of legal malpractice should have remedies that fully and adequately compensate them.

Posted by: Kia | October 17, 2007 6:18 PM

Kia: Thank you for your intellectual rigor and fairness. You are the very first here. You should check to see if you still have your job. One of your bosses had to pay big time in a rare action that succeeded. If you do not have a job, seriously, please contact me, privately. I want to make you very rich, because you deserve it.

In your view, you join the elitest of professional responsibility experts. However, you remain totally alone among your friends here. Even Ted opposes this straightforward application of the access to the court provision of many state constitutions.

Believe it or not, expansion of torts to the lawyer is the sole valid remedy to the majority of cases' being weak. Torts will improve the product of the lawyer.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 17, 2007 7:18 PM