Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 31 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.
Just to keep the blog going I thought I would add this update on the Dr. Kearney court case. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the case is at the gathering of information stage, which includes taking depositions from key figures in the events that lead to Dr. Kearney’s loss of all of his physician rights and all of his tenured professor rights, as well as his expulsion from the university.
Passed on to me through email were two public record documents that highlight the deposition interviews of Jay Blanton, Executive Director of Public Relations and Marketing at the University of Kentucky, and Sarah Bentley.
Jay Blanton Deposition: My best guess is that the Jay Blanton deposition was requested because he served as the university’s spokesperson in the Herald Leader newspaper article that discussed the university’s rationale for the death sentence meted out to Dr. Kearney by the Medical Staff Executive Committee. That Herald Leader article can be found here:
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article42611577.html
From:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION NO. III
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CI-551
Paul Kearney, M.D. vs University of Kentucky
Deposition of Jay Blanton, Executive Director of
Public Relations and Marketing
September 12, 2016
Q So all information you had about the disciplinary process had to come from sources other than yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q One of those sources was general counsel; correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q So when you put that phrase out to the press, "Unfit for clinical duty," who gave you that information? [...] Prior to your release of that statement to the press, who did you pass it in front of for approval?
[…]
A I had approval to make – provide that general sentiment, certainly. I don't know if they -- the two words I had approval for, but that sentiment I had approval for.
Q Who did you obtain that approval from?[...]
A I don't recall the specific conversation, sir, but I'm sure I talked to the general counsel.
Q Go to the next one, "The explicit determination that Dr. Kearney is unfit to perform the duties of a clinician raises significant concerns regarding any interaction with house staff."
A Yes, sir.
Q I take it you got that from general counsel too?
A Yes, sir.
Q The general counsel, and I – this is Mr. Thro?
A Generally speaking, it would be.
Q … there's also a quote from you, and if you would read that sentence into the record.
A "UK spokesman Jay Blanton said Kearney's interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible concerns that might arise from agencies that accredit the hospital."
Q Now, are you familiar with the accreditation process?
A Not intimately.
Q Are you familiar with it at all?
A Not really.
Q Who passed that information on to you that Dr. Kearney's interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible accreditation concerns?
A My recollection would be the general counsel's office.
Q If you'll go on in the statement that you continue to issue on behalf of the University, and if you'll read that next sentence, it begins "The president."
A "The president decided (in consultation with the dean of the college, Chief Medical Officer and the Chair of Surgery) that the University will exercise extraordinary care to avoid any circumstances that might raise questions from our accreditors."
Q From whom did you receive that information?
A I assume the general counsel's office.
Sarah Bentley Deposition: Ms. Bentley was deposed because she served as the recording secretary for the minutes of the January 29, 2015 and February 5, 2015 Medical Staff Executive Committee meeting at which the decision was made to take away Dr. Kearney’s privileges and expel him from the university.
From:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION NO. III
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CI-551
Paul Kearney, M.D. vs University of Kentucky
Deposition of SARAH BENTLEY September 12, 2016
Q I asked you to bring recordings with you today of the Medical Staff Executive Committee meetings in January and February of 2015. Did you bring any recordings? … you brought the January recording and your answer -- you have to say yes or no for the record…
A I e-mailed it to Bryan [Beauman, UK Legal Rep] on Friday afternoon.
Q On the second page [of the January 29, 2015 minutes] you'll see that Cliff Iler [UK Associate General Counsel Senior] was present at the meeting?
A Yes, sir.
[…]
Q Did Mr. Iler make any comments, if you recall?
A Yes, he did make comments as noted on the second page. He answered questions for the Committee around the process, outlined with the bylaws and the behavioral standards.
[…]
Q If you will read that sentence into the record, please?
A "Foundational information related to the substance of the allegations was presented by Cliff Iler.”
Q Is there more on the recording?
A There is always going to be more on the recording. With minutes, commentary is often not captured. And in my minute taking, I will generally always denote any action items or important discussion items, and commentary is not always included in my minutes.
Q “… the February 5th, 2015 Medical Staff Executive Committee.
Did you bring that recording?
A No…
Q Did anybody tell you not to bring it?
A No.
Q And the reason or reasons why you did not bring it?
A From my recollection, and my additional review, I was not able to find a recording for that meeting.
Q Did a recording exist of that meeting?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q So that meeting was not recorded?
A No, sir.
Q Despite the fact that you're listed in the minutes as the recorder?
A Yes, sir.
Q So other than what you've typed up, we don't have any report or record of any questions that were discussed [at the Feb. 5, 2015 meeting], what was told to the Medical Staff Executive Committee; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
_______________________________________________________________
I think 2 things become clear from these depositions. The first is that Mr. Blanton is apparently reporting what Professor/Adjunct Instructor/General Council Thro has instructed him to say. The second is that no electronic recording was made of the February 5, 2015 MSEC meeting at which the decisions of Dr. Kearney's innocence or guilt was voted on and his punishment was defined. Either that or the recording was lost, is in hiding or was destroyed.
Let’s look a little bit at Mr. Blanton-Thro’s deposition. To begin with, I love the idea that Mr. Blanton had approval to provide a "sentiment" for a meeting he never attended, for a meeting Mr. Thro never attended and for a meeting that the only recording of was a very few superficially written summary notes (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/files/Contracts/MSEC%20Minutes%202%205%2015_Redacted.pdf). Secondly, other than Mr. Blanton-Thro, I have never heard one person even suggest that, “interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible concerns that might arise from agencies that accredit the hospital.” Maybe we could find this "sentiment" in the recording for that meeting. Whoops, that recording seems to have disappeared. On the other hand, I have heard from multiple employees that they were told they couldn't interact with Dr. Kearney because he is a “dangerous person”. This is even ridiculously implied in the January 29, 2015 meeting minutes (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/files/Contracts/MSEC%20Minutes%201%2029%2015.pdf), wherein it is recorded:
"Since the potential of harm to staff and patients remains substantial, on January 26th Dr. Kearney was placed on summary suspension by Dr. Boulanger according to UK Medical Staff Bylaws (section 9.4)"
Keep in mind, this is the former CMO, Dr. Boulanger, a physician with a long history of personal conflicts with Dr. Kearney. Talk about a conflict of interest, if anyone should have recused himself from this committee it would be him. But no, he, along with undoubtedly the General Council who failed in his original attempt to intimidate Dr. Kearney into leaving, appear to have orchestrated the whole thing. Finally, I think it is important to reiterate that these extreme punitive measures imposed by this MSEC were all instituted in the absence of Dr. Kearney, in the absence of any representative for Dr. Kearney and in the absence of any opportunity for rebuttal of the charges made. The obtuseness of these disciplinary proceedings eventually became very clear when these charges were placed before unbiased judicial bodies. The Fayette Circuit Court, in the James R. Wilson Vs. Paul A. Kearney MD case, "DISMISSED with prejudice" (see document 7) any wrongdoing with regard to the primary incident that was used as a pretense for the MSEC committee meeting. Then there is the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure document, wherein after receiving any and all allegations and evidence that the MSEC committee, Dr. Boulanger, Mr. Thro and Mr. Iler could come up with, their judicial body concluded there exists “insufficient evidence of a violation to warrant issuance of a Complaint” against Dr. Kearney. I have to believe that this last one blew the aforementioned accreditation excuse out of the water.
Then there is poor Ms. Bentley, talk about being thrown under the bus. Hmmm, how convenient was it that she was "not able to find a recording for that meeting". One has to ask, if no recording exists who instructed her not to record this February 5, 2015 MSEC meeting? Everyone knows that it is S.O.P. to record these meetings, as is evidenced in the availability of the recording of the January 29, 2015 MSEC meeting. What happened to the recorder in the week between January 29 and February 5? I am surprised that Dr. Kearney’s lawyer did not ask her why she did not record this meeting. Having said that, Ms. Bentley's response of "I was not able to find a recording for that meeting" sounds a lot like “that document does not exist” response often received from the university’s legal office in open records requests. My immediate curiosity is similar to the one I have for these open records requests, “did recorded minutes of this meeting ever at any time exist”, and if not, "WHY"?
So this miscarriage of justice continues, and with it continues the decline of morale in the hospital, the negative impact on recruitment and retention at all levels and the many lawsuits. There are solutions, but unfortunately it requires a BoT that is in it for more than the basketball tickets, a university president that is in it for more than the ego trip, university lawyers who are willing to place the interests of the university over their personal interests and a hospital administration that is willing to admit it abused its authority and is actually interested in rectifying the situation. I think the Save Dr. Kearney Facebook page illustrates where the vast majority of UK employees and the general public stand on this matter. It is unfortunate that the present university and hospital administrations care so little about justice and public opinion.
Just to keep the blog going I thought I would add this update on the Dr. Kearney court case. As I have mentioned in previous posts, the case is at the gathering of information stage, which includes taking depositions from key figures in the events that lead to Dr. Kearney’s loss of all of his physician rights and all of his tenured professor rights, as well as his expulsion from the university.
Passed on to me through email were two public record documents that highlight the deposition interviews of Jay Blanton, Executive Director of Public Relations and Marketing at the University of Kentucky, and Sarah Bentley.
Jay Blanton Deposition: My best guess is that the Jay Blanton deposition was requested because he served as the university’s spokesperson in the Herald Leader newspaper article that discussed the university’s rationale for the death sentence meted out to Dr. Kearney by the Medical Staff Executive Committee. That Herald Leader article can be found here:
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article42611577.html
From:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION NO. III
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CI-551
Paul Kearney, M.D. vs University of Kentucky
Deposition of Jay Blanton, Executive Director of
Public Relations and Marketing
September 12, 2016
Q So all information you had about the disciplinary process had to come from sources other than yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q One of those sources was general counsel; correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q So when you put that phrase out to the press, "Unfit for clinical duty," who gave you that information? [...] Prior to your release of that statement to the press, who did you pass it in front of for approval?
[…]
A I had approval to make – provide that general sentiment, certainly. I don't know if they -- the two words I had approval for, but that sentiment I had approval for.
Q Who did you obtain that approval from?[...]
A I don't recall the specific conversation, sir, but I'm sure I talked to the general counsel.
Q Go to the next one, "The explicit determination that Dr. Kearney is unfit to perform the duties of a clinician raises significant concerns regarding any interaction with house staff."
A Yes, sir.
Q I take it you got that from general counsel too?
A Yes, sir.
Q The general counsel, and I – this is Mr. Thro?
A Generally speaking, it would be.
Q … there's also a quote from you, and if you would read that sentence into the record.
A "UK spokesman Jay Blanton said Kearney's interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible concerns that might arise from agencies that accredit the hospital."
Q Now, are you familiar with the accreditation process?
A Not intimately.
Q Are you familiar with it at all?
A Not really.
Q Who passed that information on to you that Dr. Kearney's interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible accreditation concerns?
A My recollection would be the general counsel's office.
Q If you'll go on in the statement that you continue to issue on behalf of the University, and if you'll read that next sentence, it begins "The president."
A "The president decided (in consultation with the dean of the college, Chief Medical Officer and the Chair of Surgery) that the University will exercise extraordinary care to avoid any circumstances that might raise questions from our accreditors."
Q From whom did you receive that information?
A I assume the general counsel's office.
Sarah Bentley Deposition: Ms. Bentley was deposed because she served as the recording secretary for the minutes of the January 29, 2015 and February 5, 2015 Medical Staff Executive Committee meeting at which the decision was made to take away Dr. Kearney’s privileges and expel him from the university.
From:
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT
DIVISION NO. III
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CI-551
Paul Kearney, M.D. vs University of Kentucky
Deposition of SARAH BENTLEY September 12, 2016
Q I asked you to bring recordings with you today of the Medical Staff Executive Committee meetings in January and February of 2015. Did you bring any recordings? … you brought the January recording and your answer -- you have to say yes or no for the record…
A I e-mailed it to Bryan [Beauman, UK Legal Rep] on Friday afternoon.
Q On the second page [of the January 29, 2015 minutes] you'll see that Cliff Iler [UK Associate General Counsel Senior] was present at the meeting?
A Yes, sir.
[…]
Q Did Mr. Iler make any comments, if you recall?
A Yes, he did make comments as noted on the second page. He answered questions for the Committee around the process, outlined with the bylaws and the behavioral standards.
[…]
Q If you will read that sentence into the record, please?
A "Foundational information related to the substance of the allegations was presented by Cliff Iler.”
Q Is there more on the recording?
A There is always going to be more on the recording. With minutes, commentary is often not captured. And in my minute taking, I will generally always denote any action items or important discussion items, and commentary is not always included in my minutes.
Q “… the February 5th, 2015 Medical Staff Executive Committee.
Did you bring that recording?
A No…
Q Did anybody tell you not to bring it?
A No.
Q And the reason or reasons why you did not bring it?
A From my recollection, and my additional review, I was not able to find a recording for that meeting.
Q Did a recording exist of that meeting?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q So that meeting was not recorded?
A No, sir.
Q Despite the fact that you're listed in the minutes as the recorder?
A Yes, sir.
Q So other than what you've typed up, we don't have any report or record of any questions that were discussed [at the Feb. 5, 2015 meeting], what was told to the Medical Staff Executive Committee; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
_______________________________________________________________
I think 2 things become clear from these depositions. The first is that Mr. Blanton is apparently reporting what Professor/Adjunct Instructor/General Council Thro has instructed him to say. The second is that no electronic recording was made of the February 5, 2015 MSEC meeting at which the decisions of Dr. Kearney's innocence or guilt was voted on and his punishment was defined. Either that or the recording was lost, is in hiding or was destroyed.
Let’s look a little bit at Mr. Blanton-Thro’s deposition. To begin with, I love the idea that Mr. Blanton had approval to provide a "sentiment" for a meeting he never attended, for a meeting Mr. Thro never attended and for a meeting that the only recording of was a very few superficially written summary notes (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/files/Contracts/MSEC%20Minutes%202%205%2015_Redacted.pdf). Secondly, other than Mr. Blanton-Thro, I have never heard one person even suggest that, “interaction with medical employees was being restricted because of possible concerns that might arise from agencies that accredit the hospital.” Maybe we could find this "sentiment" in the recording for that meeting. Whoops, that recording seems to have disappeared. On the other hand, I have heard from multiple employees that they were told they couldn't interact with Dr. Kearney because he is a “dangerous person”. This is even ridiculously implied in the January 29, 2015 meeting minutes (https://www.uky.edu/Legal/files/Contracts/MSEC%20Minutes%201%2029%2015.pdf), wherein it is recorded:
"Since the potential of harm to staff and patients remains substantial, on January 26th Dr. Kearney was placed on summary suspension by Dr. Boulanger according to UK Medical Staff Bylaws (section 9.4)"
Keep in mind, this is the former CMO, Dr. Boulanger, a physician with a long history of personal conflicts with Dr. Kearney. Talk about a conflict of interest, if anyone should have recused himself from this committee it would be him. But no, he, along with undoubtedly the General Council who failed in his original attempt to intimidate Dr. Kearney into leaving, appear to have orchestrated the whole thing. Finally, I think it is important to reiterate that these extreme punitive measures imposed by this MSEC were all instituted in the absence of Dr. Kearney, in the absence of any representative for Dr. Kearney and in the absence of any opportunity for rebuttal of the charges made. The obtuseness of these disciplinary proceedings eventually became very clear when these charges were placed before unbiased judicial bodies. The Fayette Circuit Court, in the James R. Wilson Vs. Paul A. Kearney MD case, "DISMISSED with prejudice" (see document 7) any wrongdoing with regard to the primary incident that was used as a pretense for the MSEC committee meeting. Then there is the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure document, wherein after receiving any and all allegations and evidence that the MSEC committee, Dr. Boulanger, Mr. Thro and Mr. Iler could come up with, their judicial body concluded there exists “insufficient evidence of a violation to warrant issuance of a Complaint” against Dr. Kearney. I have to believe that this last one blew the aforementioned accreditation excuse out of the water.
Then there is poor Ms. Bentley, talk about being thrown under the bus. Hmmm, how convenient was it that she was "not able to find a recording for that meeting". One has to ask, if no recording exists who instructed her not to record this February 5, 2015 MSEC meeting? Everyone knows that it is S.O.P. to record these meetings, as is evidenced in the availability of the recording of the January 29, 2015 MSEC meeting. What happened to the recorder in the week between January 29 and February 5? I am surprised that Dr. Kearney’s lawyer did not ask her why she did not record this meeting. Having said that, Ms. Bentley's response of "I was not able to find a recording for that meeting" sounds a lot like “that document does not exist” response often received from the university’s legal office in open records requests. My immediate curiosity is similar to the one I have for these open records requests, “did recorded minutes of this meeting ever at any time exist”, and if not, "WHY"?
So this miscarriage of justice continues, and with it continues the decline of morale in the hospital, the negative impact on recruitment and retention at all levels and the many lawsuits. There are solutions, but unfortunately it requires a BoT that is in it for more than the basketball tickets, a university president that is in it for more than the ego trip, university lawyers who are willing to place the interests of the university over their personal interests and a hospital administration that is willing to admit it abused its authority and is actually interested in rectifying the situation. I think the Save Dr. Kearney Facebook page illustrates where the vast majority of UK employees and the general public stand on this matter. It is unfortunate that the present university and hospital administrations care so little about justice and public opinion.