Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 14 posts on the blog and each has its own set of comments. To read the comments you have to hit the word "Comments" at the beginning or end of the post. Somewhat confusing is that when you bring up the comments for a specific post it eliminates the other posts from the screen. To bring the other posts back up simply go back to the top of the page and click on Blog. Finally, to understand the development of the blog it is best to read it from the bottom post (Dr. Paul Kearney Case) up. One point of note here, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available.
* Note: To see PDF Documents cited in this post simply click on the underlined segment
The comment section on the previous post was getting long (but worth reading sports fans) so I thought it might be worth extending it as a new blog post. I would tend to agree with several of the comments posted that the University’s General Council has made this Paul Kearney case into a personal matter rather than the legal matter it should be, going as far as using the Legal Office website (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/OtherDocuments.htm) to try to publically litigate the matter, and conspicuously leaving out any details that did not support his accusations. Clearly the university and hospital administrations are out to win this battle at all costs. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, due to its impact on faculty retention and recruiting, this cost could include the quality of healthcare at the university hospital as well as the research programs throughout the College.
In review:
A) Paul Kearney is the only physician in the history of UK Medical Center whose patient privileges have been taken away.
B) This vendetta was initiated based upon an incident that has been recently thrown out of court (see Document 7), or as is written on the document: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
C) The “Medical Staff Executive Committee” instituting the very extreme sanctions against Dr. Kearney was assembled by a physician colleague (Dr. Bernard Boulanger) who not only had a negative history with Dr. Kearney, but also strangely left the University (to pursue his dream in a town, Cleveland, closer to his homeland Canada) following the backlash of these extreme measures.
D) In its effort to create a case against Dr. Kearney The Medical Staff Executive Committee in their trial in absentia, and it appears even went so far as to solicit negative documentation against Dr. Kearney.
E) The Medical Staff Executive Committee arrogantly deemed themselves not only authorities of physician matters but also College and University tenured faculty matters, and executively took away all of Dr. Kearney’s tenured faculty privileges.
F) Following his suspension, Dr. Kearney was never notified of his right to or given a hearing before this Medical Staff Executive Committee, as is stated in the UK Healthcare Medical Staff Bylaws (Article 9.4.2).
G) The administration went so far as to warn (some interpreted as threatened) College and hospital faculty, students and staff against voicing opinions in the matter (unless of course they were supportive of any of the decisions made by the committee).
H) To the dismay of the administration and the University’s General Council, the Board of Trustees acknowledged the abuse of power by the Medical Staff Executive Committee by reinstating Dr. Kearney’s University tenured professor privileges.
I) The University President subsequently attempted to override this Board’s ruling.
J) The University Legal Office then attempted to get Dr. Kearney’s physician license revoked, but failed miserably when the Board of Licensure reported: “there is insufficient evidence of a violation to warrant a complaint”.
K) The former College of Medicine Dean, Fred de Beer, instituted a program of poor faculty performance evaluations as the latest avenue for getting rid of Dr. Kearney.
As always, all of this begs the question of “WHY”? Well perhaps:
A) Prior to any of the above, the EVPHA, Dr. Michael Karpf, in a College of Medicine Faculty Council meeting, threatened Dr. Kearney following his questioning of the management of KMSF and its Practice Plan Committee.
B) Following the suspension by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, the University’s General Council, Professor/Instructor Thro offered Dr. Kearney and his lawyer some minimal deal and subsequently instructed him to ‘take the deal or they would destroy his career’.
C) Dr. Kearney filed a Whistleblower suit against the university, claiming these actions were retaliatory measures taken against him following his inquires into the possible mismanagement of hospital revenue by the EVPHA and KMSF.
D) Attempts to investigate KMSF management or mismanagement of hospital finances through open records requests have been blocked by the University General Council under the claim that KMSF is not a part of the University, in spite of the fact that 2 State Attorney Generals declared otherwise. Having lost this battle, the current strategy is to invoke, either “no such document exists” (see Document 5), or as is suggested in the very latest reply from the Attorney Generals Office (see Document 4) the use of the terms “exception”, “information of a personal nature”, “attorney-client privilege and or work doctrine” and a number of “KRS” statutes. This latest response from the Attorney General’s Office to the University’s hired outside lawyer (Mr. Harry Dadds) is an interesting read and clearly suggests there is something they are worried about.
I think I will end this with a quote from one of our many commenters on the previous blog post following his/her congratulations to Dr. Blonder on her appointment as faculty representative to the Board of Trustees (BoT).
“Perhaps the true expense of this campaign against Paul Kearney can be brought to light as a result of the BoT meetings. In the wake of looming budget cuts, I would like to know how the President's continued support of what is clearly retaliation against a notable faculty member is an acceptable expense in terms of money, morale, and depth of talent in the eyes of the BoTs. What will it take to move the BoT to protect the reputation of this university and minimize fiscal waste?
* Note: To see PDF Documents cited in this post simply click on the underlined segment
The comment section on the previous post was getting long (but worth reading sports fans) so I thought it might be worth extending it as a new blog post. I would tend to agree with several of the comments posted that the University’s General Council has made this Paul Kearney case into a personal matter rather than the legal matter it should be, going as far as using the Legal Office website (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/OtherDocuments.htm) to try to publically litigate the matter, and conspicuously leaving out any details that did not support his accusations. Clearly the university and hospital administrations are out to win this battle at all costs. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, due to its impact on faculty retention and recruiting, this cost could include the quality of healthcare at the university hospital as well as the research programs throughout the College.
In review:
A) Paul Kearney is the only physician in the history of UK Medical Center whose patient privileges have been taken away.
B) This vendetta was initiated based upon an incident that has been recently thrown out of court (see Document 7), or as is written on the document: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.”
C) The “Medical Staff Executive Committee” instituting the very extreme sanctions against Dr. Kearney was assembled by a physician colleague (Dr. Bernard Boulanger) who not only had a negative history with Dr. Kearney, but also strangely left the University (to pursue his dream in a town, Cleveland, closer to his homeland Canada) following the backlash of these extreme measures.
D) In its effort to create a case against Dr. Kearney The Medical Staff Executive Committee in their trial in absentia, and it appears even went so far as to solicit negative documentation against Dr. Kearney.
E) The Medical Staff Executive Committee arrogantly deemed themselves not only authorities of physician matters but also College and University tenured faculty matters, and executively took away all of Dr. Kearney’s tenured faculty privileges.
F) Following his suspension, Dr. Kearney was never notified of his right to or given a hearing before this Medical Staff Executive Committee, as is stated in the UK Healthcare Medical Staff Bylaws (Article 9.4.2).
G) The administration went so far as to warn (some interpreted as threatened) College and hospital faculty, students and staff against voicing opinions in the matter (unless of course they were supportive of any of the decisions made by the committee).
H) To the dismay of the administration and the University’s General Council, the Board of Trustees acknowledged the abuse of power by the Medical Staff Executive Committee by reinstating Dr. Kearney’s University tenured professor privileges.
I) The University President subsequently attempted to override this Board’s ruling.
J) The University Legal Office then attempted to get Dr. Kearney’s physician license revoked, but failed miserably when the Board of Licensure reported: “there is insufficient evidence of a violation to warrant a complaint”.
K) The former College of Medicine Dean, Fred de Beer, instituted a program of poor faculty performance evaluations as the latest avenue for getting rid of Dr. Kearney.
As always, all of this begs the question of “WHY”? Well perhaps:
A) Prior to any of the above, the EVPHA, Dr. Michael Karpf, in a College of Medicine Faculty Council meeting, threatened Dr. Kearney following his questioning of the management of KMSF and its Practice Plan Committee.
B) Following the suspension by the Medical Staff Executive Committee, the University’s General Council, Professor/Instructor Thro offered Dr. Kearney and his lawyer some minimal deal and subsequently instructed him to ‘take the deal or they would destroy his career’.
C) Dr. Kearney filed a Whistleblower suit against the university, claiming these actions were retaliatory measures taken against him following his inquires into the possible mismanagement of hospital revenue by the EVPHA and KMSF.
D) Attempts to investigate KMSF management or mismanagement of hospital finances through open records requests have been blocked by the University General Council under the claim that KMSF is not a part of the University, in spite of the fact that 2 State Attorney Generals declared otherwise. Having lost this battle, the current strategy is to invoke, either “no such document exists” (see Document 5), or as is suggested in the very latest reply from the Attorney Generals Office (see Document 4) the use of the terms “exception”, “information of a personal nature”, “attorney-client privilege and or work doctrine” and a number of “KRS” statutes. This latest response from the Attorney General’s Office to the University’s hired outside lawyer (Mr. Harry Dadds) is an interesting read and clearly suggests there is something they are worried about.
I think I will end this with a quote from one of our many commenters on the previous blog post following his/her congratulations to Dr. Blonder on her appointment as faculty representative to the Board of Trustees (BoT).
“Perhaps the true expense of this campaign against Paul Kearney can be brought to light as a result of the BoT meetings. In the wake of looming budget cuts, I would like to know how the President's continued support of what is clearly retaliation against a notable faculty member is an acceptable expense in terms of money, morale, and depth of talent in the eyes of the BoTs. What will it take to move the BoT to protect the reputation of this university and minimize fiscal waste?