Hospital obstructs medical care, nearly kills doctor

I recently reported on Stephanie Waggel, the doctor fired by a prestigious U.S. hospital for getting cancer (story also picked up by Medscape and The Washington Post).  In her whistleblower video, Stephanie describes how she nearly died due to obstruction of medical care. 

It started during my intern year of residency.  Which, bizarrely, was the happiest year of my life. And all my friends are like, “You’re an intern, you’re not supposed to be happy, something is clearly wrong with you.” But, I’m like, “I’m out! I’m doing psychiatry. This is what I’ve always wanted to do.” I absolutely loved it. I had so much energy and I planned my outfits weeks in advance and had themes. And I had all these lectures for the medical students and it was just everything that I always wanted and it was completely delightful. I started having this pain, and it was waking me up from my sleep. And I really didn’t have time (because I was an intern) to get it worked up. But it was getting really, really bad. I was feeling really sick a lot and something had to be wrong so I really had to push to go to these appointments. 

For example, one time I went to get an MRI, but the MRI machine broke and then I had to go again the next day. And then when I told my team and my attending the MRI machine broke, they made some joke about my weight. And I was like, “No it’s actually cause there’s some helium tank in it that broke.” They were not letting me go. It was awful, and I’m like, “No, I need to find out what’s wrong with me.” So I pushed and pushed and pushed and after wrong diagnosis, and everything, they finally found out that I had renal cell carcinoma. And I said, “Well, that’s going to be a lot more doctors appointments.” 

So I went and I had a partial nephrectomy [kidney removal] and I thought that everything could be set up because there are people having babies and things like that. So I would send my schedule, like when my appointments were, and say, “Oh I have this appointment, like, three Tuesdays from now.” That Tuesday would come and everybody would be like, “Oh, we’re slammed today. You’re going to have to reschedule that appointment.” And I’d be like, “Okay.” And then, I’d reschedule it and then that day would come and they’d be like, “Oh, we’re really busy.” I would never be able to get to go to my appointments. So, eventually, I was just like, “I’m going, I need to go.” And my oncologist said that had I not gone, I would have died within at least a year or two. And, when he said that to me, I was like, “Well, I’m really glad that I went, because had I listened to everyone around me, I would be dead in a year or two.”

And I distinctly remember this attending that I had, on the day that I was diagnosed with cancer, told me to pick between being a doctor and being a patient. And up until that point, I never really thought about, “What if I’m a patient and a doctor?” But then, the entire year was just a struggle to be both. 

So I went to my chief for help, I’m like, “I need to go to these appointments, like follow-up,” cause I needed genetic testing because what twenty-eight-year-old female gets kidney cancer? And he was just saying, “Ugh, we’re going to have to re-do the call schedule.” And I’m like, “I’m so sorry to inconvenience you, but I have cancer.” Then I went to governing bodies (that I won’t mention) and they were telling me, “This really isn’t our problem, it sounds like an institutional kind of thing.” So then I went to people in my program, I went to attendings, I went to the dean, I went to the hospital ombudsperson (who cried when I told her what was going on). She seemed to care a lot, but she basically said there is nothing I can do for you.

After that, I saw her in the hallway at work and she had this look like, “I’m so sorry that I can’t help you.” And she came over and handed me a piece of paper and hugged me and walked away. And I looked at the paper and it was the telephone number to a lawyer, and I’m like, “This is all just so bizarre.” So then, I really didn’t want to get the legal system involved, but there’s got to be somebody that can help me. So then I started writing to the university president and he didn’t reply to me either. 

So I just got to this place where I decided to just fix everything on my own. So I made it a QI [Quality Improvement] project to create a system that I call PWP (which is physician wellness program). So that if anybody else has a chronic illness, or even needs to go to therapy every week or something, that they don’t go through all these hurdles that I was going through. And I spent a lot of time and research and effort into this and that’s how I found out about the National Day of Solidarity to Prevent Physician Suicide, which I worked on with Pamela. Once my department found out that I was doing this, they’re like, “You need to stop.” And I said, “But, you told me to do research and I’m doing research.” And they said, “You can’t have days about suicide.” And I’m like, “Why not?” 

So then, I did finally get a lawyer and I filed a claim to the EEOC and then when they found out I filed the claim to the EEOC, they voted to terminate my residency. And, I appealed that cause my evaluations from my attendings, I had maybe two average and the rest were above average.  And it just didn’t make sense so I figured that maybe they’d look my appeal and wonder, “Why are we firing her?” But then, when Care 2 published a little paragraph about why I got involved in the Day of Solidarity, and I spoke about how I had cancer and was having a really tough time getting off work to go. That is the day that they chose to send me a letter stating they’re terminating my salary and my health insurance, knowing that I still had more follow-up. So I just thought this is definite retaliation, the vote to fire me was after I filed with the EEOC and then the letter I got terminating all my benefits was the same day as my paragraph for the Care 2 page came up. 

So, now I am unemployed, so I am full-time working on PWP. So if anybody has any connections to residency programs that they’d like to implement a wellness program into, I’m your gal. 

 

Stephanie Waggel fired for cancer

Leave Stephanie a comment below or contact her at ImproveMedicalCulture.com.

Got a whistleblower story? Been abused in training? Contact Dr. Wible.

___

Pamela Wible, M.D., reports on human right violations in medicine and offers physician retreats to help her colleagues heal from the trauma of their training. Are you a wounded healer? Come join us! Video by Geve. 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Add your comment below or scroll down to read 27 comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

27 comments on “Hospital obstructs medical care, nearly kills doctor
  1. Sylvia Andrews says:

    None of this surprises me. People have a difficult time taking responsibility for things. Out of all the people Dr. Waggel went to for help, surely one of them could have and should have done something to help her attend her appointments without retribution. The world we live in can be very cold. I have noticed this to be especially true in competitive environments like medicine. It is likely the people she asked to help were either too busy or they did not wish to upset their colleagues that, for whatever reason, where impeding this young woman’s medical care. With those loans and health insurance, I hope she is able to find another program.

  2. Kempen says:

    Residency is EDUCATION and not employment. Just like any pregnant resident, you should have sought a leave of absence-illness is indeed a right to withdraw from residency. You would not be paid, certainly may create problems with insurance and extend your time in residency.
    This is a fact of life in medical training. You chose it. Your residency program chose YOU and they are responsible to provide you with the time off YOU need to be healthy. Hell, they force you to immunize!
    If you went to your residency director with written request for leave of absence for medical care and that was rejected, then legal liability would ensue.
    seems your course of action was the problem: “So then, I did finally get a lawyer and I filed a claim to the EEOC and then when they found out I filed the claim to the EEOC, they voted to terminate my residency. “

    • Pamela Wible MD says:

      So doctors-in-training aren’t protected by employment laws? They’re just on their own? Isn’t compassion part of medical education?

    • Pamela Wible MD says:

      Nobody chooses abuse when they apply to med school or residency. FYI.

    • Stephanie says:

      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add that I did apply for medical leave. I was on FMLA leave when I was fired. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that residents are employees in 2011 but considered students at times. The line is blurred.

    • Reb says:

      What a evil person you ate with destroy drive pathology, so disturbingly dime a dozen in medical.

      Ahe should have been APPLAUDED for having so much life drive determination to do her work plus own medical plus chores of life.

      As poor called lazy in discriminatiin, THIS is exactly HOW SO MANY end up poor as refused equal rights access.

      Get out of medical. Your a disgrace that psychology should be focusing on; destroy drive narcissicism abuser.

  3. Gram says:

    OMG Sharing this all over!! (((((((((())))))))))

  4. Asha Kamnani says:

    I believe the story. Doctors do not have compassion for colleagues. Just for patients because patients fill up their wallet. Sick and sad

    • Reb says:

      The destrpy drive doctor types DO NOT have compassion for patients, either. So many sick are gping into poverty, as not diagnosed or treated.Every adult must work and do chores, run a family, etc.

      Any that abuse another ALWAYS ABUSE any vulnerable in their path. The abuse and discriminatiin in medical has been covered up way too long.

      Even the spousal abuse in medical and cops IS A HUGE ISSUE that has been coveted up so long.

      Abusers CONSTANTLY abuse to feed off others and ENJOY causing distress and harm and disempowerment.

  5. William Stueve says:

    I’m the Medical Director at a Federally Qualified Community Health Center. We care deeply about the wellbeing of our clinicians. We also have a constant presence of medical and PA students doing clinical rotations. I’m always concerned about the wellbeing of the students also. Stephanie, your story resonated with me and I would be very interested in corresponding further with you about our respective experiences with clinician wellness.

  6. Linda Knight says:

    I read another story of an intern that actually DIED because he dud not want to lose his residency, so chose not to get treatments. This is horrible and must stop!!!

    Another ended losing his place and is now going through a PA program.

    Is this how we treat medical doctors that are continuing their education of residency when they become ill? There is no compassion? No wonder there is also no compassion for patients either.
    This is horrendous and changes need to be made.

  7. Owen Jones says:

    Support you

  8. Tom Clayton, MD says:

    I have been a medical doctor for over 40 years. This is the most bizarre case I have ever read about but the primary problems are from YOUR actions in dealing with what should have been a routine workup and treatment. Why don’t you present the whole story? A wrong diagnosis with a renal mass? It is more likely that the diagnosis was wrong clinically before directed imaging. If you had paid attention in medical school, you would have recognized that misdiagnosis is very common in the absence of imaging. Your own comments strongly suggest that you were out to get anyone that you could get your hands on to blame them for your problems from the very beginning. I may sound negative here, but what I really want to do is be objective but your one sided comments make it impossible to be complete.

    You said that you picked out your “outfits” weeks in advance with specific themes? It is great to be excited, but what you relayed is not normal. Just what do you think residency is? You worked 100 hour weeks? Doing what? Why have you always wanted to be a psychiatrist? Is ti because you want to tell other people what is wrong with them when the real problems are what is wrong with you? You were a lower level psychiatry resident with little training and experience; psychiatry nowadays is primarily drug therapy because it works FAR better than talk therapy. It does not take 100 hours a week to do this.

    You had a renal mass which could have been easily worked up initially with ultrasound, but becoming hysterical because an MRI malfunctioned is ridiculous. Most renal tumors are clear cell and they are relatively slow growing. They are also usually asymptomatic until they get very large, so saying that you were constantly feeling ill after the diagnosis suggests that it started in your head.

    But despite the one-sided presentation, the telling feature is that a partial nephrectomy was done instead of a complete nephrectomy, which is consistent with a small tumor that is not aggressive. Although there is some controversy, as usual, chemotherapy does not work. But since you had an “ice cream cone nephrectomy,” then it had not spread.

    So you get the surgery and then have a few follow ups. Where is the problem? You start attacking everyone in sight and prove that you are anything BUT a stable person. It cannot JUST have been that you missed a few hours on a shift; just from what you have related, you apparently have significant mental problems that you somehow concealed to get into a psychiatric residency, after which all hell broke loose. What are you doing writing letters to administrative people who have nothing to do with your problem?

    It is more likely that before the tumor problem staff were tolerating you and trying to figure out how to deal with your bizarre behavior. Nobody who is a physician in an administrative position is going to ask you if you are going to be a doctor or a patient UNLESS your shenanigans precipitated this distinction. There is a lot that you are not telling us.

    Some physicians have medical or surgical problems just like the rest of the population, but they deal with them without going ballistic. As to physician suicide, what are you doing involved with this when you cannot handle your own affairs? Doing research? What a joke. I predict that you are going to lose your lawsuit; based on the bizarre story above, I think that you should have been fired before the renal problem. It is wrong to put innocent patients at risk from a disturbed physician. First do no harm.

    • Erica Randolph, MD says:

      Wow this testimony really struck a cord with you. People like you are one of the many reasons med students and residents have depression. You could have spent your time helping others but you choose to spend your time name calling a young women who nearly died. You are a bully. There are complications with her diagnosis but unlike you, she doesn’t have all the time in the world to go on and on about it and it is her right not to. I know Stephanie doesn’t respond to trolls but I will. I will say that her first urologist said that her tumor was benign but Steph knew it wasn’t. She fought hard to get a second opinion with the chief of urology and he agreed with her and then he removed it just a few weeks later. As for the rest of your rant – it is so long and full of errors, opinion, and no facts. I don’t have time to go through them all -but this should cover it: She wouldn’t say anything publically that she could not back up in court. But since you sound like you have a personal investment in this case I bet that you can just hear the full story in court with your own ears when it happens. Until then, you have an MD, surely, you can find something better to do with your time.

    • Mark Wilson says:

      What specialty are you? I am a urologist and her story seemed plausible to me. Your comment is disturbing because if someone without a medical background were to read it, it almost sounds like you know what you are talking about. Fortunately, after reading how you blame patients for not finding their own disease, tell them their symptoms are in their head, and stoop to name calling, I doubt they would go to you anyway. If you have been a doctor for 40 years, why do you act like a child? If you had paid attention in medical school, you would realize that doctors aren’t supposed to harass patients. But, since this patient was also a resident, and I assume you harass residents daily, you figured this patient was fair game so you laid on the childish name-calling.

    • Sarah Diekman says:

      Thank you. I thought I was going to have a heart attack. Thank you for being the voice of leadership

    • Sarah Diekman says:

      Ummmm.There are too many errors in your statement to address completely, but first off she is was a mid level. You need to do your research on CBT vs pharmacotherapy for many major psych illnesses. Do you patients a favor and crawl back into your troll hole or pick up a journal once in a while. You have missed a lot in the 40 years you have been out of med school. We now have more than penicillin to learn about. You should get your mind right or get out of medicine. You are a menace to society

    • Linda R S says:

      Even aside from accusing the author of saying things she never said, this comment is one of the cruelest things I have ever read on the Internet. Tom Clayton, if that is your real name, you should be ashamed of yourself. How do you sleep at night? Do you treat everyone like this or just young female cancer patients? If you are a doctor, I truly hope you are in pathology.

      • suze willa says:

        might be this tom clayton?

        first thing that comes up when i google tom clayton md….

        Justia › U.S. Law › Case Law › Texas Case Law › Texas Court of Appeals, Twelfth District Decisions › 2005 › Tom Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Charles T. Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Thomas M. Clayton v. Susan Wisener–Appeal…
        Tom Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Charles T. Clayton, M.D., a/k/a Thomas M. Clayton v. Susan Wisener–Appeal from 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County
        Annotate this Case
        NO. 12-03-00251-CV

        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

        TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

        TYLER, TEXAS

        TOM CLAYTON, M.D., a/k/a APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

        CHARLES T. CLAYTON, M.D.,

        a/k/a THOMAS M. CLAYTON,

        APPELLANT

        JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

        V.

        SUSAN WISENER,

        APPELLEE NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

        OPINION

        In six issues, Appellant Tom Clayton, M.D. challenges the trial court s entry of a judgment awarding $91,488.00 in actual damages and $200,000.00 in exemplary damages to Appellee Susan Wisener. We affirm in part and reverse and render in part.

        Background

        In 1995, Wisener went to work for Medaphis Physicians Services Corporation, a medical billing service company, as an account representative. Dr. Clayton contracted with Medaphis to perform his billing and collections for his radiology practice, and Wisener was assigned to his account. According to Wisener, in November of 1995, Dr. Clayton began calling her, making offensive comments, as well as propositions of a sexual nature, and asking inappropriate questions about her sex life with her husband.

        In April of 1996, Wisener became ill and was admitted to Nacogdoches Medical Center for diagnostic testing. During her stay in the hospital, Wisener underwent a HIDA scan to determine if she had problems with her gallbladder. Dr. Clayton read the results of her HIDA scan and reported that the scan was normal. Wisener continued to suffer from abdominal pain and sought a second opinion. Her treating physicians concluded that her gallbladder was abnormal and removed the gallbladder.

        On July 1, 1998, Wisener sued Dr. Clayton, alleging his conduct invaded her privacy. // Specifically, Wisener alleged that Dr. Clayton, among other things, 1) asked her about her sex life with her husband, 2) asked if she ran around on [her] husband, 3) told her to show him different private parts of her body, 4) told her to perform various sex acts on him, 5) told her he wanted to touch different parts of her body, and 6) propositioned her for sex. Wisener sought actual and exemplary damages from Dr. Clayton for his actions.

        On July 21, Dr. Clayton answered Wisener s suit with a general denial. Wisener amended her petition on January 19, 2000 and included an allegation that Dr. Clayton s actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. She continued to seek actual and exemplary damages.

        Wisener s case went to trial on March 24, 2003. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Wisener, finding that Dr. Clayton intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Wisener and intentionally intruded on her private affairs. The jury awarded Wisener $20,000.00 for past mental anguish and $72,488.00 for past lost earning capacity. The jury also found that the harm to Wisener resulted from malice and awarded her $500,000.00 in exemplary damages. //

        On May 30, 2003, Dr. Clayton filed motions for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to modify the judgment, all of which were denied on July 8. He timely perfected this appeal.

        Legal and Factual Sufficiency

        In his first issue, // Dr. Clayton contends that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury s findings of liability on Wisener s intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy claims. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury s award of damages for mental anguish and past lost earning capacity. In his second issue, Dr. Clayton contends that each of the jury s findings are immaterial and should be disregarded because the evidence to support each finding is legally and factually insufficient. Dr. Clayton makes the same arguments in issues one and two; therefore, we will consider them as one issue.

        Standard of Review

        In reviewing a legal sufficiency or no evidence complaint, the appellate court must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the challenged findings and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the challenged findings, the no evidence challenge fails. Leitch v. Hornsley, 935 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex. 1996). We may sustain a no evidence point only when the record discloses one of the following: (1) there is a complete absence of evidence of a vital fact, (2) the court is barred by rules of law or evidence from giving weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact, (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a mere scintilla of evidence, or (4) the evidence establishes conclusively the opposite of a vital fact. See Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997). It is not within our province to second guess the fact finder unless only one inference can be drawn from the evidence. See Havner v. E-Z Mart Stores, Inc., 825 S.W.2d 456, 461 (Tex. 1992). If the evidence furnishes some reasonable basis for differing conclusions by reasonable minds about a vital fact s existence, more than a scintilla of evidence exists. Burroughs Wellcome v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995); Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc., 650 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983).

        When conducting a factual sufficiency review, we must consider all of the evidence, including any evidence contrary to the verdict. Plas-Tex., Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989). Furthermore, we must reverse on the basis of factual insufficiency if the court s finding is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust. Pool v. Ford Motor Co., 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986). This court is not a fact finder and may not pass on the credibility of the witnesses or substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact, even if a different conclusion could be reached on the evidence. See Herbert v. Herbert, 754 S.W.2d 141, 144 (Tex. 1988); Clancy v. Zale Corp., 705 S.W.2d 820, 826 (Tex. App. Dallas 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.). When a party without the burden of proof on an issue challenges the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the question is whether insufficient evidence supports the complained-of finding. Gooch v. Am. Sling Co., 902 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1995, no writ). An assertion that the evidence is “insufficient” to support a fact finding means that the evidence supporting the finding is so weak or the evidence to the contrary is so overwhelming that the finding should be set aside and a new trial ordered. Garza v. Alviar, 395 S.W.2d 821, 823 (Tex. 1965).

        I. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

        To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must establish that 1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly, 2) the defendant s conduct was extreme and outrageous, 3) the defendant s actions caused the plaintiff emotional distress, and 4) the resulting emotional distress was severe. Hoffman-LaRoche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 445 (Tex. 2004).

        A. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct

        Dr. Clayton argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support a finding that his conduct was extreme and outrageous. Extreme and outrageous conduct has been defined as conduct so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 621 (Tex. 1993). Generally, liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress has only been found in those cases in which a recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would lead him to exclaim, Outrageous! See Foye v. Montes, 9 S.W.3d 436, 440 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Liability does not extend to a defendant who conducts himself toward others with mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or other trivialities. GTE Southwest v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 612 (Tex. 1999). The test for determining what conduct is extreme and outrageous is essentially a subjective one. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. v. Chason, 81 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex. App. Tyler 2002, pet. denied) (citing Twyman, 855 S.W.2d at 629 (Hecht, J., concurring and dissenting)).

        It is well recognized that a course of harassing conduct may support liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d at 615. When ongoing harassment is alleged, the offensive conduct is evaluated as a whole. Id. It is for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether a defendant s conduct was extreme and outrageous. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d at 445 (citing Bruce, 998 S.W.2d at 616). But when reasonable minds may differ, it is for the jury, subject to the court s control, to determine whether, in the particular case, the conduct was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to result in liability. Id.

        The cases discussing whether conduct is extreme and outrageous are as varied as the spectrum of facts that could conceivably constitute the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Courts deciding these cases have had great difficulty in analyzing whether a set of facts rises to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct, as evidenced by the Texas Supreme Court s recent statement that [f]or the tenth time in little more than six years, we must reverse an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim for failing to meet the exacting requirements of that tort. See Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson, 157 S.W.3d 814, 815 (Tex. 2005). The threshold for what constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct sufficient to give rise to the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is therefore a difficult one to meet. Chason, 81 S.W.3d at 311.

        The record, viewed in the light most favorable to Wisener, reveals that from November or December of 1995 to May of 1996, Wisener talked to Dr. Clayton three or four times a week. Wisener contends that the following conduct by Dr. Clayton supports the jury s finding that he intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon her during that time period:

        1. Around the first of December 1995, during business calls at work, Dr. Clayton began asking Wisener personal questions such as her age, whether she was married, whether she had any children, what her husband did for a living, and how much money he made. She thought these matters were none of his business.

        2. Toward the end of 1995, Dr. Clayton asked her about her sex life at home and if her husband was happy with their sex life. He wanted to know how often she had sex with her husband and wanted to know her breast size. He also wanted to know if she had affairs with other men. When talking about sex, Dr. Clayton used the term f**k and also discussed blow jobs. He told her he wanted to f**k at least ten times over a one month period.

        3. In December 1995 or January of 1996, Dr. Clayton told her that he wanted to go to a motel room and f**k and that he wanted her ass.

        4. Dr. Clayton told Wisener that her breasts were big.

        5. During Wisener s hospital stay, Dr. Clayton told her to get her ass out of bed and go collect his money. He also asked her to take her shirt off.

        6. In late April or early May of 1996, after her surgery, Dr. Clayton still wanted to know if she wanted to have sex with him and if they hurt [her] breasts during the surgery.

        7. Dr. Clayton intentionally misread her HIDA scan by stating that her gallbladder was normal when her gallbladder was abnormal.

        Our opinion in Chason is helpful to determine whether this complained-of conduct was extreme and outrageous. In that case, Lisa Chason obtained a jury verdict awarding her damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress from Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. The award arose from the publication of topless and other embarrassing photos of her by an attorney for Haynes & Boone, L.L.P. during and immediately after an administrative hearing held in a matter between her husband and the City of Palestine. Chason, 81 S.W.3d at 310. Chason also complained that during the second day of the hearing, the attorney told a local newspaper reporter that she had some photographs she would like to sell him. Id.

        In Chason, this court analyzed the holdings of other courts deciding whether conduct was extreme and outrageous. Id. at 311-13. The cases in which the reviewing court upheld a finding of extreme and outrageous conduct or found that summary judgment evidence created a fact issue on extreme and outrageous conduct dealt with unwanted sexual advances or suggestions over a period of time as well as conduct occurring within a short time period. See Morgan v. Anthony, 27 S.W.3d 928, 931 (Tex. 2000) (defendant s sexually suggestive comments while attempting to offer assistance to plaintiff whose car had died and continued pursuit of her after she declined such assistance created a fact issue, thus necessitating reversal of summary judgment in favor of defendant); Bruce, 998 S.W.2d at 612-13 (supervisor engaged in ongoing acts of harassment, intimidation, humiliation, daily use of vulgarities, and obscene behavior); Fields v. Teamsters Local Union No. 988, 23 S.W.3d 517, 531-33 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied) (employer threatened to fire employee if she did not succumb to his sexual advances; the conduct took place over a three-month period); Gonzales v. Willis, 995 S.W.2d 729, 736 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1999, no pet.) (defendant repeatedly initiated sexually explicit conversations and made sexual advances in spite of plaintiff s protests, suggested he could help her get a job in return for sexual favors, and encouraged co-workers to make indecent propositions to her).

        After discussing these cases, we observed that Chason complained of two isolated incidents, not a prolonged series of acts. Chason, 81 S.W.3d at 314. In holding that the conduct in Chason was not the sort of flagrant or heinous facts described in cases finding extreme and outrageous conduct, we noted that the attorney did not 1) make any indecent propositions to Chason, 2) engage in vulgar or obscene behavior, or 3) attempt to deceive Chason in order to further a personal interest. Id. at 313-14.

        etc etc etc

    • Reb says:

      Your a disgusting, narcissistic, destroy drive, sooo dangerous for patients or even a spouse/child bully.

      Psych drugs work best? No, fool, finding the environmental factors causing detriment vs function and dignity.

      You are the very pathological type that MUST become the focus of mental health: Destroyy-drive narcissistic pathology.

      Seek help. No way you have not harmed patients and caused mass suicides and unec inhumane suffering.

      You are disgusting. You cleary are afraid to know yourself and self regulate. Got to attack and demean ones to get your little false power, addict fix like every other impotent.

  9. Peter L says:

    Doctors can be the worst trolls.
    In fact, we have tacitly created the system that we are in…

  10. Reb says:

    You should contact me. Did Psych for college. Been a patient that is block and delayed medical with severe, documented, whistleblower retaliation/intimidation.

    A holistic, organizational program that serves both patients and doctors, and justice of laws and contracts broken us absolutely a huge necessity.

    I have been designing a peogram for years, now and have experienced all levels of entities bullcrap.

    Thankyou.

Click here to comment

ARCHIVES

Has your dream job turned into a nightmare?

Pamela Wible

Copyright © 2011-2018 Pamela Wible MD     All rights reserved worldwide     site design by Pamela Wible MD and afinerweb.com