https://www.facebook.com/Save-Dr-Kearney-1039697039481791/
Central to Dr. Kearney’s Whistleblower lawsuit is the claim that the extreme punitive measures taken by the University administration and its legal department to force him out of the University are a consequence of his questioning of the money management practices of UK Healthcare/KMSF. This included the public suggestion of an audit of KMSF at a special College of Medicine Faculty Council meeting (called to discuss this “legal matter”) that resulted in what several have interpreted as a threat by the Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, Dr. Karpf. Since this episode the University, using both University and outside lawyers, have gone to great expense (including multiple lawsuits) to prevent this audit by claiming this billing and money management arm of UKHC, KMSF, is not a component of the University. This in spite of the fact that it was founded by UKHC and uses almost exclusively UKHC personnel to run and manage its operation.
UK’s primary arguments in their multiple attempts to get Dr. Kearney’s lawsuit dismissed are that they were totally justified in the extreme actions they took to destroy his career and that there is no substance in his claims of money mismanagement by KMSF/UKHC. We have already noted multiple times on the blog the weakness in their argument for justification of the extreme measures they all of a sudden decided to impose on probably their best trauma surgeon, citing a history of a behavior that they had endorsed for 25 years with outstanding performance evaluations, promotion to full professor with tenure and many teaching awards.
Now their argument for no substance in Dr. Kearney’s claim of KMSF money mismanagement also appears to be faltering badly. It was the initial observation that a committee of individuals putatively involved in KMSF money management decisions (Practice Plan Committee) having never met for 4 years might suggest money mismanagement problems at KMSF. Of course the early claim (at the Faculty Council meeting) was that this was not a problem, or as General Counsel Thro put it to the Faculty Council, ‘this is none of the Faculty Council's business’. Since this, things have become a little dicier with regards to possible money mismanagement at KMSF. We have had exposure of the use of this KMSF managed revenue for private jets, parties at the Iroquois Hunt Club, Keeneland box seat season tickets, 5 million dollar payout to cover Hazard money mismanagement and now we have this $48,000,000 Class Action Lawsuit against the University of Kentucky/UK Healthcare for illegally using the state’s Department of Revenue as a collection agency (see here).
This document describes the case for 5 individuals that are deemed part of a much larger group that UKHC/KMSF has sent past due billing to the Kentucky Department of Revenue for collection of their debt. The Department of Revenue then garnishes the wages, bank accounts and tax refunds to pay off this debt, as well as the 25% commission they tack on to the debt. There are multiple claims in this lawsuit including the claim that the Department of Revenue can only do this type of collection work for “agencies” of the state. The lawsuit then makes the argument (citing KRS laws: an agency is: “an organizational unit or administrative body in the executive branch of state government”) that neither the University of Kentucky, nor its billing arm KMSF, fit into the category of “agencies” of the state. This must especially hold true if KMSF wishes to assert its claim as independent from the University. There are a bunch of other claims in this document along with KRS laws to support them, making it an interesting read. It really does read like UKHC, through this collaboration with the Department of Revenue, is simply handing anchors to many who are dogpaddling in deep water.
The bottom line being that these documented cases of KMSF money mismanagement along with the departure of key individuals involved in the Dr. Kearney vendetta as well as the rumored shake-up of KMSF management, all support the contention that the disciplinary actions taken against Dr. Kearney were retaliatory for his probes into KMSF money mismanagement and not for some unsupported contention that he used improper language in a trauma ward.