Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 33 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.
In the comment section of our previous post containing Dr. Capilouto's deposition, one of our blog commenters, El Topo, recognized the significance of an email that Dr. Kearney's lawyer brought up in his questioning of Dr. Capilouto. This email was to Mr. Cliff Iler, the university's Associate General Council representing the legal arm of the hospital in the Medical Staff Executive Committee meetings that tried, convicted and sentenced Dr. Kearney to the death sentence he is now serving. He is also the hospital legal representative in most if not all of its legal matters, including those associated with KMSF. The reason that this November 3, 2014 email is so important is because, "take the deal or I will ruin your career" Professor/Adjunct Instructor General Council Thro informed the Board of Trustees that Dr. Kearney's allegation of Whistle Blowing only occurred AFTER his privileges were suspended in February of 2015! As I have been told, the BoT did have some knowledge of this document in August of 2015 when they returned Dr. Kearney's Tenured Professor privileges, that of course Dr. Capilouto subsequently usurped and modified. This email, should it exist, in the parlance of Sherlock Holmes would appear to be a "smoking gun".
El Topo's blog request concerning this email has produced a MiKi Leaks anonymous email sent to my gmail account. This email contained what is termed "an exact copy of an email sent by Mr. Bernard Pafunda to Hospital Attorney Mr. Clifton Iler on November 3, 2014". I have posted it below.
November 3, 2014
Mr. Clifton Iler
Hospital Counsel
Re: Paul A Kearney MD, D.Sci, MS, FACS
Professor of Surgery
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
I write to advise that Dr. Kearney rejects your recent offer. I also write to advise that
the offer merits no “in kind” reply. Rather, it is obvious that the most recent
complaints regarding Dr. Kearney, upon which this “action” is grounded, not only
lack basis in fact but constitute a contrived effort to maliciously document Dr.
Kearney’s personnel file with allegations of wrongful conduct, unsupported by the
University’s own investigation(s) for the sole purpose of removing Dr. Kearney (a
senior member of the Faculty Council and Chairman of the Department of Surgery
Practice Plan Committee) from his position in “retaliation” for his public disclosure
of Dr. Karpf’s impropriety i.e. attempting gain control of KMSF practice plan funding
contrary to University regulations.
Also disturbing is the timing of the September 4th and 5th complaints, solicited and
fabricated by the University, to cover its retaliation against Dr. Kearney, for
publically disclosing Dr. Karpf’s purposeful disregard for University regulations in
an effort to secure control of the KMSF funds.
The following is undisputed:
1. During a faculty council meeting Dr. Karpf threatened to terminate Dr. Kearney
after he disclosed to the counsel Dr. Karpf’s lawless effort to misappropriate KMSF
funds in direct violation of University regulations. The “threat” was made in the
presence of the faculty council members and Bill Thro, University General Counsel.
2. Shortly thereafter a student is alleged to complain that Dr. Kearney included a
discriminatory remark during a lecture. A review of the circumstance revealed that
no other student complained. Rather, those in attendance rewarded Dr. Kearney’s
lecture with a vigorous ovation at its conclusion. Review of the lecture recording
confirmed that the “complaint” was unfounded. This current “action” is in part
grounded on that “meritless” claim.
3. On September 5, 2014 a patient, James Wilson, complained about Dr. Kearney.
The complaint did not involve patient care of treatment but rather Dr. Kearney’s
abrasive remarks made in course of inserting a feeding tube in severely a injured
hepatitis B and C positive young man when the patient attempted to bite a resident
physician who was assisting Dr. Kearney. The patient was safely and successfully
treated. This current action is in part grounded on that “meritless” claim.
4. Dr. Kearney by agreement was placed on administrative leave to permit an
investigation of the James Wilson event to proceed. Dr. Kearney agreed to the
temporary administrative leave to insure independence of the investigation and to
protect the University from potential criticism from the patient that the findings
might be influenced by Dr. Kearney’s presence in the department. The investigation
is concluded. No disciplinary action or charge has followed.
5. A “few” days later Dr. Karpf contacted Greg Goodman and tells Mr. Goodman
that Dr. Kearney struck a nurse. Dr. Kearney’s personnel file confirms that there was
a allegation lodged at one time. However, that the University’s investigation
determined the allegation was unfounded and that no disciplinary action followed.
The more disturbing aspect of this event is Dr. Karpf’s conduct in sharing the
contents of Dr. Kearney’s confidential personnel file with someone outside the
University - “particularly” because the shared information was unsubstantiated.
6. The University’s recent effort to manufacture a “fictitious” paper trail
comprised of solicited claims and allegations of improper behavior lacking factual
validity is nothing more than a “veiled” effort by the University’s to cover its
retaliation against Dr. Kearney because of his disclosure of Dr. Karpf’s attempt to
assume control of KMSF funds in violation of University regulations.
In reply we demand that Dr. Kearney be immediately returned to work without
change of job status, title or compensation, that his personnel file be purged of any
record of false and misleading contents, and that the University be restrained from
further action designed to damage, alter or impact Dr. Kearney’s employment
relationship with the University and/or his reputation.
In the comment section of our previous post containing Dr. Capilouto's deposition, one of our blog commenters, El Topo, recognized the significance of an email that Dr. Kearney's lawyer brought up in his questioning of Dr. Capilouto. This email was to Mr. Cliff Iler, the university's Associate General Council representing the legal arm of the hospital in the Medical Staff Executive Committee meetings that tried, convicted and sentenced Dr. Kearney to the death sentence he is now serving. He is also the hospital legal representative in most if not all of its legal matters, including those associated with KMSF. The reason that this November 3, 2014 email is so important is because, "take the deal or I will ruin your career" Professor/Adjunct Instructor General Council Thro informed the Board of Trustees that Dr. Kearney's allegation of Whistle Blowing only occurred AFTER his privileges were suspended in February of 2015! As I have been told, the BoT did have some knowledge of this document in August of 2015 when they returned Dr. Kearney's Tenured Professor privileges, that of course Dr. Capilouto subsequently usurped and modified. This email, should it exist, in the parlance of Sherlock Holmes would appear to be a "smoking gun".
El Topo's blog request concerning this email has produced a MiKi Leaks anonymous email sent to my gmail account. This email contained what is termed "an exact copy of an email sent by Mr. Bernard Pafunda to Hospital Attorney Mr. Clifton Iler on November 3, 2014". I have posted it below.
November 3, 2014
Mr. Clifton Iler
Hospital Counsel
Re: Paul A Kearney MD, D.Sci, MS, FACS
Professor of Surgery
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
I write to advise that Dr. Kearney rejects your recent offer. I also write to advise that
the offer merits no “in kind” reply. Rather, it is obvious that the most recent
complaints regarding Dr. Kearney, upon which this “action” is grounded, not only
lack basis in fact but constitute a contrived effort to maliciously document Dr.
Kearney’s personnel file with allegations of wrongful conduct, unsupported by the
University’s own investigation(s) for the sole purpose of removing Dr. Kearney (a
senior member of the Faculty Council and Chairman of the Department of Surgery
Practice Plan Committee) from his position in “retaliation” for his public disclosure
of Dr. Karpf’s impropriety i.e. attempting gain control of KMSF practice plan funding
contrary to University regulations.
Also disturbing is the timing of the September 4th and 5th complaints, solicited and
fabricated by the University, to cover its retaliation against Dr. Kearney, for
publically disclosing Dr. Karpf’s purposeful disregard for University regulations in
an effort to secure control of the KMSF funds.
The following is undisputed:
1. During a faculty council meeting Dr. Karpf threatened to terminate Dr. Kearney
after he disclosed to the counsel Dr. Karpf’s lawless effort to misappropriate KMSF
funds in direct violation of University regulations. The “threat” was made in the
presence of the faculty council members and Bill Thro, University General Counsel.
2. Shortly thereafter a student is alleged to complain that Dr. Kearney included a
discriminatory remark during a lecture. A review of the circumstance revealed that
no other student complained. Rather, those in attendance rewarded Dr. Kearney’s
lecture with a vigorous ovation at its conclusion. Review of the lecture recording
confirmed that the “complaint” was unfounded. This current “action” is in part
grounded on that “meritless” claim.
3. On September 5, 2014 a patient, James Wilson, complained about Dr. Kearney.
The complaint did not involve patient care of treatment but rather Dr. Kearney’s
abrasive remarks made in course of inserting a feeding tube in severely a injured
hepatitis B and C positive young man when the patient attempted to bite a resident
physician who was assisting Dr. Kearney. The patient was safely and successfully
treated. This current action is in part grounded on that “meritless” claim.
4. Dr. Kearney by agreement was placed on administrative leave to permit an
investigation of the James Wilson event to proceed. Dr. Kearney agreed to the
temporary administrative leave to insure independence of the investigation and to
protect the University from potential criticism from the patient that the findings
might be influenced by Dr. Kearney’s presence in the department. The investigation
is concluded. No disciplinary action or charge has followed.
5. A “few” days later Dr. Karpf contacted Greg Goodman and tells Mr. Goodman
that Dr. Kearney struck a nurse. Dr. Kearney’s personnel file confirms that there was
a allegation lodged at one time. However, that the University’s investigation
determined the allegation was unfounded and that no disciplinary action followed.
The more disturbing aspect of this event is Dr. Karpf’s conduct in sharing the
contents of Dr. Kearney’s confidential personnel file with someone outside the
University - “particularly” because the shared information was unsubstantiated.
6. The University’s recent effort to manufacture a “fictitious” paper trail
comprised of solicited claims and allegations of improper behavior lacking factual
validity is nothing more than a “veiled” effort by the University’s to cover its
retaliation against Dr. Kearney because of his disclosure of Dr. Karpf’s attempt to
assume control of KMSF funds in violation of University regulations.
In reply we demand that Dr. Kearney be immediately returned to work without
change of job status, title or compensation, that his personnel file be purged of any
record of false and misleading contents, and that the University be restrained from
further action designed to damage, alter or impact Dr. Kearney’s employment
relationship with the University and/or his reputation.