Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 34 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. Feel free to comment should you wish. No email address is required to make a comment so anonymity is strong. Due to some previous abuse of this right to anonymously comment, I have had to include an approval option, but I try to approve within 24 hours. 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.
Once a job is once begun never quit until it’s done. Whether it be big or small, do it right or not at all. As Mi Amigo promised here is part 2 of Dr. Capilouto's deposition in the Dr. Paul Kearney lawsuit. I should note, that upon reading and transferring it to the blog, I added a couple of documents that I thought would help. These additions are in italics. Finally once again, Dr. Kearneys lawyer’s questions (Q) are in green and Dr. Capilouto’s answers (A) are in red.
Dr. Noonan, here is Part II of president Capilouto’s deposition in the Kearney vs. UK lawsuit. This occurred about a week after the first one, is only 72 pages long and has some redundancy with the first. The same people were present and president Capilouto appears a bit more prepared (rehearsed) for this one in that the number of “I don’t remember” or “I can’t remember” statements seem to appear a bit more often. Furthermore, president Capilouto appears to have mastered the art of not answering questions by simply avoiding the question with some long winded justification for his innocence in this whole thing.
- Okay, Part 2 of President Capilouto’s deposition begins with a revisit to the university’s organizational chart. Then Dr. Kearney’s lawyer revisited Dr. Capilouto’s first knowledge of the alleged misbehavior issues, termed the first meeting.
Q When this matter was first brought to your attention, it was brought by general
counsel William Thro; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Do you recall what he told you about Dr. Kearney?
A I just -- my best recollection is that the Chief Medical Officer had made a decision to put Dr. Kearney on leave; that there had been an issue involving a patient, and that there was also an issue involving a recent lecture that Dr. Kearney had given, and that there was a letter in the last couple of years in which Dr. Kearney's unprofessional behavior had been documented in the form of corrective action.
Q Did the discussion -- was anyone else present at -- during this time?
A I don't think so.
Q And in the same vein, did Mr. Thro discuss with you any pattern of unprofessional behavior that was attendant to Dr. Kearney?
A Only to the extent that there was a letter that had documented previous, you know, behavior.
Q And did you see that letter?
A I don't remember –
- Then came questions about Dr. Capilouto’s 2nd meeting on this matter.
Q And on that subsequent -- we'll call it the second meeting, just for the sake of being obvious -- were you given more information about Dr. Kearney?
A I don't recall getting detailed information. I -- most of what I learned about Dr. Kearney was after the decisions had been made by the Board. This last hearing, that's when I looked into the hearing panel and that kind of information where more detail was shed on this.
Q Returning to, and again, I'll label it the second meeting, who attended that second meeting?
A I don't know. It may have been Mr. Thro and my Chief of Staff may have been standing there.
Q And your Chief of Staff is who, please?
A Bill Swinford.
Q So I take it from your response that no record or memoranda or notes were made of either the first meeting or the second meeting --
A No, sir.
Q -- is that correct? And any notes made by yourself or anyone on your behalf of any of the meetings prior to the time the Healthcare Committee returned Dr. Kearney to work as a full tenured professor?
A No, sir.
Q And I take it you were advised as to the process that would be followed; correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And again, by Mr. Thro?
A Yes.
Q So Mr. Thro was, for lack of a better expression, one of the driving forces behind the disciplinary action; is that correct?
A He was the person that informed me of the process that would be followed.
- The questions then went on to learn who else Dr. Capilouto discussed this problem with and the bottom line is basically nobody else but Mr. Thro. They then moved on to the decision to “negotiate a deal” with Dr. Kearney. This questioning degenerated into questions about whom he consulted on this (again only Thro), where the money for the payoff would be coming from and exactly when all of this was first decided upon. Establishing a timeline appears to be the main objective in this drawn out questioning.
Q So at that time, and I'm taking it this is in October of 2014, you had made the decision based on the information passed on to you by general counsel that Dr. Kearney should leave the University; correct?
A I made the decision that we should negotiate with Dr. Kearney about his leaving the University.
Q But if you'll look at that sentence –
A Uh-huh.
Q -- "negotiate an agreement" –
A Uh-huh.
Q -- it reads, "Negotiate an agreement where Dr. Kearney would leave the University"?
A Correct.
Q So he had two choices, correct, leave or negotiate?
A Negotiate to leave.
Q So he actually had one choice. Either way, he was gone from the University; correct?
A No.
Q Someone must have made at this particular time, in the fall of 2014, that Dr. Kearney was going to leave the University?
A I don't understand what you're saying.
Q From this answer that was given on your behalf, someone in the fall of 2014 had to have made the decision that Dr. Kearney was going to leave the University?
A That would be premature.
Q And the reason you say it would be premature?
A Is because the -- the – the process -- and here we're -- at this stage we're only talking about his medical privileges. That process had not --
Q Even begun?
A Even begun, right.
Q So when you say be premature, so if Dr. Kearney was given the ultimatum to settle or have his career ruined, that would be an improper characterization of the whole process; correct?
A I don't understand exactly what you are –
Q You in no way gave approval for someone on your behalf to tell Dr. Kearney that if he didn't take a settlement his career would be ruined?
A I -- I wasn't trying to ruin Dr. Kearney's career. I was trying to negotiate a separation, so it's that simple.
Q Thank you. When it references in this answer that was given, "Dr. Kearney's previous record of misbehavior," that's more than just a letter of reprimand, is it not?
A You know, as I said earlier, you know, I have that initial sort of this is what's happened. I asked to -- you know, for somebody to brief me on these medical bylaws and the process that is followed. I would imagine there was more discussion, but I did not -- I didn't examine Dr. Kearney's file. You know, I just heard that there had been a pattern, that there had been a history.
Q When you heard that there had been a pattern or there had been a history, I take it from your earlier responses that came from general counsel William Thro?
A Right, yes.
Q Am I correct?
A Correct.
Q Did it come from anyone else?
A No.
Q And as you've emphatically stated on several occasions, you relied on what general counsel passed on to you that there had been a pattern of unprofessional conduct?
A Including numerous letters in his file about his behavior.
Q Thank you. And had no reason in your position as president of the University to question that information?
A As it was described to me, that was enough information to make a decision to negotiate a separation.
- They then moved into discussions of the Board of Trustees Fair Hearing Panel wherein the Board upheld the revoking of Dr. Kearney’s patient privileges but returned Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges (document_12.pdf).
- They started off this conversation with Medical Staff Executive Committee report that this Fair Hearing Panel based its decision on.
Q If you would read the next sentence, please, President Capilouto.
A "As viewed by the Committee, multiple warnings, leaves of absence, remediation programs, written reprimands and action plans had done little to eliminate the problem."
Q And the problem that that refers to is the unprofessional behavior, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
- They beat this into the ground for awhile with Dr. Kearney’s lawyer simply trying to get Dr. Capilouto to acknowledge the simple fact that each of these violations (multiple warnings, leaves of absence, remediation programs, written reprimands and action plans) were projected as having occurred multiple times as it is clearly written in the Medical Staff Executive Committee's report. I feel certain Dr. Capilouto knew exactly where he was going with this and so he simply talked around the questions.
Q But the suggestion is, at the least on Page 11, that the Medical Staff Executive Committee was presented with that information; is that correct?
A The Medical Staff Executive Committee is, I assume, aware of these things, but again, I wasn't part of the Medical Staff Executive Committee deliberation and so forth.
Q No, I understand that. You've made that clear.
A Okay.
Q We are just looking at what the Fair Hearing Panel rendered in terms of a decision, are we not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Thank you. Now, if that information that was presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee was, in fact, false, then they couldn't render an appropriate decision, could they?
- Again refusing to simply answer these yes/no questions, Dr. Capilouto talked around them, or simply playing dumb. Dr. Kearney’s lawyer then produced the minutes of the MSEC meeting of February 5, 2015 (see MSEC Minutes 2-15). As has been noted previously on the blog, these minutes are very superficial and no recording of this meeting was ever made.
Q President Capilouto, have -- you've had an opportunity to review the minutes of the February 5th Medical Staff Executive Committee meeting?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it lists, does it not, Items 1 through 21 as the documents that were presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee, does it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And of those documents that are listed, there's not a single document that shows a leave of absence, is there?
A I -- I don't know what's contained in all of these letters, sir.
Q But in looking at the title of the documents, just from the title, is there a single document entitled "Leave of Absence"?
A No, but I don't know what's in the letters.
Q I understand that. Is there any documents entitled "Remediation Programs"?
A No, it just says the letters. It doesn't discuss -- well, there's a written reprimand and action plan.
Q And that's one written reprimand and one action plan attended thereto; correct?
A Yes. But again, I don't know the contents of all of this.
Q I understand that.
A All right.
Q And, in fact, above that, the only performance evaluation presented in terms of a document is No. 15, the 2012 faculty performance review for Dr. Paul Kearney?
A Yes.
Q Do you see any other faculty performance reviews that were presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee?
A No. But again, I don't know what's in every one of those letters.
Q I understand that. So from what's contained in the minutes of the Medical Staff Executive Committee of February 5th, 2015, we have Item No. 16, which is a single written reprimand and action plan; correct?
A Right.
Q And we have listed for the calendar year just one faculty performance review for 2012; correct?
A Right.
Q In fact, reviewing the minutes of the Medical Staff Executive Committee, there's no record as to what the Medical Staff Executive Committee was told about Dr. Kearney other than the list of documents; am I correct in stating that?
A There are 21 documents listed here. After review, any questions were discussed
Q Let me stop --
A I don't know what was in that discussion, sir.
Q Thank you. Nor do these minutes reflect that?
A I don't know what was discussed.
Q Did you know that Dr. Kearney had no resident complaints over his 27-year period?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know that he had only one patient complaint in 27 years and that came from Mr. Wilson?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know he had zero faculty complaints?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know that he had no student complaints over the 27 years except for the one in August of 2014, anonymous student complaint?
A I don't know that.
Q But if we're to look and pin down this alleged picture of unprofessional behavior, we would look at his performance evaluations where that should surely be reflected, should we not?
A I don't know entirely where all of that is captured, but I certainly see in what the Hearing Panel reviewed there was information shared about his behavior.
- They went on about Dr. Kearney’s outstanding performance evaluations that Dr. Capilouto reluctantly had to acknowledge. They then ventured into Dr. Capilouto’s modifications on the Board of Trustees decision to return Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges.
Q But you took it upon yourself to be hands-on after the Healthcare Committee issued a decision returning Dr. Kearney to campus as a tenured professor?
A I thought it was appropriate to review the materials.
Q And took a more active part in the procedure following that return?
A I asked for advice on how we were going to handle that, and to be reasonably informed, I certainly looked through all of the documents.
Q And you also set up a committee, did you not?
A I didn't set up a committee. I asked Mr. Thro to get people together to determine how we were going to handle this.
Q And was that, in fact, done?
A Advice was given to me by Mr. Thro, yes.
Q Do you know what persons that he gathered together to address that?
A You asked me that last time. I haven't checked on it. I think I remember the Dean of Medicine and Chair of Surgery, Chief Medical Officer. Maybe somebody who knew something about accreditation. I'm sorry, I can't remember who he consulted.
- They then jumped into the bogus draft document stuffed into Dr. Kearney’s personnel file.
Q This is a draft document, is it not, Mr. President?
A That's what it appears to be.
Q In fact, it's not signed, is it?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that this document had been placed in Dr. Kearney's personnel file at some point in time?
A I may have known that. I just don't remember. I can't remember.
Q When you say you can't remember and that you may have known that, if you -- if you did, in fact, know it, who would have brought it to your attention?
A This may have been part of the materials available to the Committee. I – I remember seeing this somewhere.
Q If this, in fact, was presented to the Committee, now are you talking about the Medical Staff Executive Committee or the Fair Hearing Panel?
A I don't know, sir.
Q If this in fact was presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it would, in fact, be a false document, would it not?
A I don't know if it was presented, how it was presented and how it was conveyed.
Q In fact, if it was presented to the investigators for the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it's a document that's false in its entirety, is it not?
A I don't know that, sir.
Q If it, in fact, is false in its entirety, and was, in fact, given to the investigative -- investigative team for the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it should have never been presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee; isn't that correct?
A I don't know, sir.
- From here Dr. Kearney’s lawyer questioned Dr. Capilouto with regards to the official letter that documented that Dr. Kearney’s accusations of Dr. Karpf’s mismanagement of KMSF funds clearly preceded the measures that were taken to silence him (the take the deal or I will ruin your career “negotiations”, the MSEC meetings, the Fair Hearing decision and Dr. Capilouto’s private committee’s modifications of the Fair Hearing Committee’s decision).
- This of course led into the evidence for KMSF financial mismanagement and the Hazard Cardiology fiasco.
- The meeting ended with a direct discussion of Dr. Capilouto’s special committee that took it upon themselves to modify the Board of Trustee’s return of Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges.
Q After the Board -- Board of Trustees Healthcare Committee returned Dr. Kearney to work as a tenured professor, that correspondence from Mr. Thro, he's speaking on behalf of the University; correct?
A Yes.
Q My second question was there was a committee formed, and again, what individual or individuals comprised that committee?
A I don't know in the entirety who may have been consulted. I would certainly think people mentioned on the carbon copy, some of those may have been consulted, that they would have been --
Q Would you read their -- would you read their names into the record, please?
A Tim -- Timothy Tracy, Bill Swinford, Frederick DeBeer, Robert Cofield, Bernard Boulanger, Susan McDowell, Jay Zwischenberger, R. Brett Short, Margaret Pisacano.
- A few more questions were asked about the existence of any written documentation with respect to Dr. Capilouto’s involvement in this meeting, and of course there is none. At the end of this it sounded like Dr. Kearney’s lawyer may have had a few more questions, but the meeting appeared to abruptly end.
Thanks again to Mi Amigo for providing this material. I think these depositions support the theory that this was a totally biased committee of individuals dedicated to driving a tenured faculty physician out of the University of Kentucky. It also suggests that we have at least one and maybe two lawyers working at this university that are a disgrace to their profession. The use of false documentation, threats, a trial without representation and a punishment that is totally beyond their authority, suggests an arrogance and total disregard for the law and profession they were trained in. If this were a civil court I suspect they would be disbarred.
Once a job is once begun never quit until it’s done. Whether it be big or small, do it right or not at all. As Mi Amigo promised here is part 2 of Dr. Capilouto's deposition in the Dr. Paul Kearney lawsuit. I should note, that upon reading and transferring it to the blog, I added a couple of documents that I thought would help. These additions are in italics. Finally once again, Dr. Kearneys lawyer’s questions (Q) are in green and Dr. Capilouto’s answers (A) are in red.
Dr. Noonan, here is Part II of president Capilouto’s deposition in the Kearney vs. UK lawsuit. This occurred about a week after the first one, is only 72 pages long and has some redundancy with the first. The same people were present and president Capilouto appears a bit more prepared (rehearsed) for this one in that the number of “I don’t remember” or “I can’t remember” statements seem to appear a bit more often. Furthermore, president Capilouto appears to have mastered the art of not answering questions by simply avoiding the question with some long winded justification for his innocence in this whole thing.
- Okay, Part 2 of President Capilouto’s deposition begins with a revisit to the university’s organizational chart. Then Dr. Kearney’s lawyer revisited Dr. Capilouto’s first knowledge of the alleged misbehavior issues, termed the first meeting.
Q When this matter was first brought to your attention, it was brought by general
counsel William Thro; is that correct?
A Correct.
Q Do you recall what he told you about Dr. Kearney?
A I just -- my best recollection is that the Chief Medical Officer had made a decision to put Dr. Kearney on leave; that there had been an issue involving a patient, and that there was also an issue involving a recent lecture that Dr. Kearney had given, and that there was a letter in the last couple of years in which Dr. Kearney's unprofessional behavior had been documented in the form of corrective action.
Q Did the discussion -- was anyone else present at -- during this time?
A I don't think so.
Q And in the same vein, did Mr. Thro discuss with you any pattern of unprofessional behavior that was attendant to Dr. Kearney?
A Only to the extent that there was a letter that had documented previous, you know, behavior.
Q And did you see that letter?
A I don't remember –
- Then came questions about Dr. Capilouto’s 2nd meeting on this matter.
Q And on that subsequent -- we'll call it the second meeting, just for the sake of being obvious -- were you given more information about Dr. Kearney?
A I don't recall getting detailed information. I -- most of what I learned about Dr. Kearney was after the decisions had been made by the Board. This last hearing, that's when I looked into the hearing panel and that kind of information where more detail was shed on this.
Q Returning to, and again, I'll label it the second meeting, who attended that second meeting?
A I don't know. It may have been Mr. Thro and my Chief of Staff may have been standing there.
Q And your Chief of Staff is who, please?
A Bill Swinford.
Q So I take it from your response that no record or memoranda or notes were made of either the first meeting or the second meeting --
A No, sir.
Q -- is that correct? And any notes made by yourself or anyone on your behalf of any of the meetings prior to the time the Healthcare Committee returned Dr. Kearney to work as a full tenured professor?
A No, sir.
Q And I take it you were advised as to the process that would be followed; correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And again, by Mr. Thro?
A Yes.
Q So Mr. Thro was, for lack of a better expression, one of the driving forces behind the disciplinary action; is that correct?
A He was the person that informed me of the process that would be followed.
- The questions then went on to learn who else Dr. Capilouto discussed this problem with and the bottom line is basically nobody else but Mr. Thro. They then moved on to the decision to “negotiate a deal” with Dr. Kearney. This questioning degenerated into questions about whom he consulted on this (again only Thro), where the money for the payoff would be coming from and exactly when all of this was first decided upon. Establishing a timeline appears to be the main objective in this drawn out questioning.
Q So at that time, and I'm taking it this is in October of 2014, you had made the decision based on the information passed on to you by general counsel that Dr. Kearney should leave the University; correct?
A I made the decision that we should negotiate with Dr. Kearney about his leaving the University.
Q But if you'll look at that sentence –
A Uh-huh.
Q -- "negotiate an agreement" –
A Uh-huh.
Q -- it reads, "Negotiate an agreement where Dr. Kearney would leave the University"?
A Correct.
Q So he had two choices, correct, leave or negotiate?
A Negotiate to leave.
Q So he actually had one choice. Either way, he was gone from the University; correct?
A No.
Q Someone must have made at this particular time, in the fall of 2014, that Dr. Kearney was going to leave the University?
A I don't understand what you're saying.
Q From this answer that was given on your behalf, someone in the fall of 2014 had to have made the decision that Dr. Kearney was going to leave the University?
A That would be premature.
Q And the reason you say it would be premature?
A Is because the -- the – the process -- and here we're -- at this stage we're only talking about his medical privileges. That process had not --
Q Even begun?
A Even begun, right.
Q So when you say be premature, so if Dr. Kearney was given the ultimatum to settle or have his career ruined, that would be an improper characterization of the whole process; correct?
A I don't understand exactly what you are –
Q You in no way gave approval for someone on your behalf to tell Dr. Kearney that if he didn't take a settlement his career would be ruined?
A I -- I wasn't trying to ruin Dr. Kearney's career. I was trying to negotiate a separation, so it's that simple.
Q Thank you. When it references in this answer that was given, "Dr. Kearney's previous record of misbehavior," that's more than just a letter of reprimand, is it not?
A You know, as I said earlier, you know, I have that initial sort of this is what's happened. I asked to -- you know, for somebody to brief me on these medical bylaws and the process that is followed. I would imagine there was more discussion, but I did not -- I didn't examine Dr. Kearney's file. You know, I just heard that there had been a pattern, that there had been a history.
Q When you heard that there had been a pattern or there had been a history, I take it from your earlier responses that came from general counsel William Thro?
A Right, yes.
Q Am I correct?
A Correct.
Q Did it come from anyone else?
A No.
Q And as you've emphatically stated on several occasions, you relied on what general counsel passed on to you that there had been a pattern of unprofessional conduct?
A Including numerous letters in his file about his behavior.
Q Thank you. And had no reason in your position as president of the University to question that information?
A As it was described to me, that was enough information to make a decision to negotiate a separation.
- They then moved into discussions of the Board of Trustees Fair Hearing Panel wherein the Board upheld the revoking of Dr. Kearney’s patient privileges but returned Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges (document_12.pdf).
- They started off this conversation with Medical Staff Executive Committee report that this Fair Hearing Panel based its decision on.
Q If you would read the next sentence, please, President Capilouto.
A "As viewed by the Committee, multiple warnings, leaves of absence, remediation programs, written reprimands and action plans had done little to eliminate the problem."
Q And the problem that that refers to is the unprofessional behavior, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
- They beat this into the ground for awhile with Dr. Kearney’s lawyer simply trying to get Dr. Capilouto to acknowledge the simple fact that each of these violations (multiple warnings, leaves of absence, remediation programs, written reprimands and action plans) were projected as having occurred multiple times as it is clearly written in the Medical Staff Executive Committee's report. I feel certain Dr. Capilouto knew exactly where he was going with this and so he simply talked around the questions.
Q But the suggestion is, at the least on Page 11, that the Medical Staff Executive Committee was presented with that information; is that correct?
A The Medical Staff Executive Committee is, I assume, aware of these things, but again, I wasn't part of the Medical Staff Executive Committee deliberation and so forth.
Q No, I understand that. You've made that clear.
A Okay.
Q We are just looking at what the Fair Hearing Panel rendered in terms of a decision, are we not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Thank you. Now, if that information that was presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee was, in fact, false, then they couldn't render an appropriate decision, could they?
- Again refusing to simply answer these yes/no questions, Dr. Capilouto talked around them, or simply playing dumb. Dr. Kearney’s lawyer then produced the minutes of the MSEC meeting of February 5, 2015 (see MSEC Minutes 2-15). As has been noted previously on the blog, these minutes are very superficial and no recording of this meeting was ever made.
Q President Capilouto, have -- you've had an opportunity to review the minutes of the February 5th Medical Staff Executive Committee meeting?
A Yes, sir.
Q And it lists, does it not, Items 1 through 21 as the documents that were presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee, does it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And of those documents that are listed, there's not a single document that shows a leave of absence, is there?
A I -- I don't know what's contained in all of these letters, sir.
Q But in looking at the title of the documents, just from the title, is there a single document entitled "Leave of Absence"?
A No, but I don't know what's in the letters.
Q I understand that. Is there any documents entitled "Remediation Programs"?
A No, it just says the letters. It doesn't discuss -- well, there's a written reprimand and action plan.
Q And that's one written reprimand and one action plan attended thereto; correct?
A Yes. But again, I don't know the contents of all of this.
Q I understand that.
A All right.
Q And, in fact, above that, the only performance evaluation presented in terms of a document is No. 15, the 2012 faculty performance review for Dr. Paul Kearney?
A Yes.
Q Do you see any other faculty performance reviews that were presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee?
A No. But again, I don't know what's in every one of those letters.
Q I understand that. So from what's contained in the minutes of the Medical Staff Executive Committee of February 5th, 2015, we have Item No. 16, which is a single written reprimand and action plan; correct?
A Right.
Q And we have listed for the calendar year just one faculty performance review for 2012; correct?
A Right.
Q In fact, reviewing the minutes of the Medical Staff Executive Committee, there's no record as to what the Medical Staff Executive Committee was told about Dr. Kearney other than the list of documents; am I correct in stating that?
A There are 21 documents listed here. After review, any questions were discussed
Q Let me stop --
A I don't know what was in that discussion, sir.
Q Thank you. Nor do these minutes reflect that?
A I don't know what was discussed.
Q Did you know that Dr. Kearney had no resident complaints over his 27-year period?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know that he had only one patient complaint in 27 years and that came from Mr. Wilson?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know he had zero faculty complaints?
A I don't know that.
Q Did you know that he had no student complaints over the 27 years except for the one in August of 2014, anonymous student complaint?
A I don't know that.
Q But if we're to look and pin down this alleged picture of unprofessional behavior, we would look at his performance evaluations where that should surely be reflected, should we not?
A I don't know entirely where all of that is captured, but I certainly see in what the Hearing Panel reviewed there was information shared about his behavior.
- They went on about Dr. Kearney’s outstanding performance evaluations that Dr. Capilouto reluctantly had to acknowledge. They then ventured into Dr. Capilouto’s modifications on the Board of Trustees decision to return Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges.
Q But you took it upon yourself to be hands-on after the Healthcare Committee issued a decision returning Dr. Kearney to campus as a tenured professor?
A I thought it was appropriate to review the materials.
Q And took a more active part in the procedure following that return?
A I asked for advice on how we were going to handle that, and to be reasonably informed, I certainly looked through all of the documents.
Q And you also set up a committee, did you not?
A I didn't set up a committee. I asked Mr. Thro to get people together to determine how we were going to handle this.
Q And was that, in fact, done?
A Advice was given to me by Mr. Thro, yes.
Q Do you know what persons that he gathered together to address that?
A You asked me that last time. I haven't checked on it. I think I remember the Dean of Medicine and Chair of Surgery, Chief Medical Officer. Maybe somebody who knew something about accreditation. I'm sorry, I can't remember who he consulted.
- They then jumped into the bogus draft document stuffed into Dr. Kearney’s personnel file.
Q This is a draft document, is it not, Mr. President?
A That's what it appears to be.
Q In fact, it's not signed, is it?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that this document had been placed in Dr. Kearney's personnel file at some point in time?
A I may have known that. I just don't remember. I can't remember.
Q When you say you can't remember and that you may have known that, if you -- if you did, in fact, know it, who would have brought it to your attention?
A This may have been part of the materials available to the Committee. I – I remember seeing this somewhere.
Q If this, in fact, was presented to the Committee, now are you talking about the Medical Staff Executive Committee or the Fair Hearing Panel?
A I don't know, sir.
Q If this in fact was presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it would, in fact, be a false document, would it not?
A I don't know if it was presented, how it was presented and how it was conveyed.
Q In fact, if it was presented to the investigators for the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it's a document that's false in its entirety, is it not?
A I don't know that, sir.
Q If it, in fact, is false in its entirety, and was, in fact, given to the investigative -- investigative team for the Medical Staff Executive Committee, it should have never been presented to the Medical Staff Executive Committee; isn't that correct?
A I don't know, sir.
- From here Dr. Kearney’s lawyer questioned Dr. Capilouto with regards to the official letter that documented that Dr. Kearney’s accusations of Dr. Karpf’s mismanagement of KMSF funds clearly preceded the measures that were taken to silence him (the take the deal or I will ruin your career “negotiations”, the MSEC meetings, the Fair Hearing decision and Dr. Capilouto’s private committee’s modifications of the Fair Hearing Committee’s decision).
- This of course led into the evidence for KMSF financial mismanagement and the Hazard Cardiology fiasco.
- The meeting ended with a direct discussion of Dr. Capilouto’s special committee that took it upon themselves to modify the Board of Trustee’s return of Dr. Kearney’s tenured professor privileges.
Q After the Board -- Board of Trustees Healthcare Committee returned Dr. Kearney to work as a tenured professor, that correspondence from Mr. Thro, he's speaking on behalf of the University; correct?
A Yes.
Q My second question was there was a committee formed, and again, what individual or individuals comprised that committee?
A I don't know in the entirety who may have been consulted. I would certainly think people mentioned on the carbon copy, some of those may have been consulted, that they would have been --
Q Would you read their -- would you read their names into the record, please?
A Tim -- Timothy Tracy, Bill Swinford, Frederick DeBeer, Robert Cofield, Bernard Boulanger, Susan McDowell, Jay Zwischenberger, R. Brett Short, Margaret Pisacano.
- A few more questions were asked about the existence of any written documentation with respect to Dr. Capilouto’s involvement in this meeting, and of course there is none. At the end of this it sounded like Dr. Kearney’s lawyer may have had a few more questions, but the meeting appeared to abruptly end.
Thanks again to Mi Amigo for providing this material. I think these depositions support the theory that this was a totally biased committee of individuals dedicated to driving a tenured faculty physician out of the University of Kentucky. It also suggests that we have at least one and maybe two lawyers working at this university that are a disgrace to their profession. The use of false documentation, threats, a trial without representation and a punishment that is totally beyond their authority, suggests an arrogance and total disregard for the law and profession they were trained in. If this were a civil court I suspect they would be disbarred.