Update on the Dr. Kearney Case

2/16/2018

"Once again, for those new to this blog site, at present there are 47 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 constructive comments within 24 hours. One last point of note, to read the earliest posts you have to click on the word "<<Previous" at the very bottom of the posts available. Finally, for those just looking for a good summary of the Dr. Kearney case, simply scroll down to the previous 12/10/2016 post. For social media developments on the Dr. Kearney situation I would encourage you to visit the excellent "Save Dr. Kearney Facebook Page":
https://www.facebook.com/Save-Dr-Kearney-1039697039481791/

Well it has been raining on my golf game, so it must be time for another update on the Dr. Kearney Case. To begin with, the current scheduled activity for court action with regard to the Dr. Kearney lawsuit is a “Motion For Summary Judgment” filed by the “three” outside lawyers (Bryan Beauman, Joshua Salsburey, and Megan George from Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC) that the university has hired to handle this matter. In actuality, this is the 3rd attempt by these lawyers to get this case dismissed. The 26-page document (with 440 pages of exhibits), as I understand it and as you might expect, presents the university’s biased presentation/justifications of the actions taken, and why they feel justified in taking the measures they did in their attempt to destroy the career of a well respected physician and professor at the university. Dr. Kearney’s lawyer will file a response to this motion and then both parties will come before the court on March 16, 2018 to argue their case. What becomes clear to me from the above information is that the university (meaning us taxpayers) is forking out hundreds of thousand of dollars in legal fees for the sole purpose of silencing and destroying the career of a highly respected university professor and physician. Add to this the cost these legal proceedings have had on the morale, recruitment and retention of faculty and staff in the hospital, and it’s no wonder that many of the instigators of this travesty have left the scene of the crime.

I can only guess that Dr. Kearney’s lawyer’s response to this “Motion For Summary Judgment” will likewise include a basket full of appropriate documents to support their contentions that this treatment and harassment was in a number of ways unconstitutional and was implemented for reasons other than what is being claimed in the university's “Motion For Summary Judgment”. Not being a lawyer I can only guess that perhaps some of these documents might include:

-           26 years of annual performance evaluations rated excellent or better and signed off on by the individuals making these charges. Perhaps more importantly, not a one of these evaluations mentions the “pattern of unprofessional behavior” these people allege took place throughout Dr. Kearney’s career.

-           Then there is the paperwork documenting Dr. Kearney’s promotions from Assistant Professor to Full Professor that took place over this same time period. Again, these documents must also be signed off on by some of these same hospital administrators claiming a “pattern of unprofessional behavior”.

-           Then of course there is the documentation for the 29 teaching awards (including the highest teaching award from the Department of Surgery) Dr. Kearney received in his 30 years of service. I would think that somewhat blows out of the water the single student complaint these lawyers were able to come up with.

-           Hopefully this paper trail will also include the documentation for the 15 “Best Doctors in America” and 10 “America’s Top Surgeons” Awards Dr. Kearney has received.

-           Along these lines, I think there is a bit of irony in the fact that the University of Kentucky is harassing and trying to destroy the career of a College of Medicine physician/professor, Dr. Paul A. Kearney, who they at the same time have accepted and implemented an Endowed Chair position in his name. This webpage: http://www.uky.edu/CouncilEPC/endowed.php lists Dr. Andrew Bernard as the “Paul A. Kearney Endowed Chair in Trauma Surgery”. I would interpret this to mean that somebody felt that Dr. Kearney’s behavior in the trauma ward was respectable enough to donate a considerable chunk of change (2 million dollars) to this university in his name. Saving lives appears to be a hallmark of Dr. Kearney’s. I’ve already commented on his saving the life of one of my graduate students, and if you visit the “Save Dr. Kearney” Facebook page mentioned above you will find many other examples of this.

-           Then there are those something like 120 letters of support for Dr. Kearney sent to President Capilouto. In spite of what the UK lawyers might wish, those letters fall under the “Open Records” laws for this public institution.

-           Knowing how much these lawyers like to cherry-pick information to support their claims, perhaps Dr. Kearney’s lawyer might include cherry-picked statements from depositions that support the argument that motivations for taking these actions against Dr. Kearney go beyond this patient complaint (which by the way is the only one he has received in 30 years of service at the university and which was dismissed with prejudice by courts). Just to name a couple possible deposition items, there’s the “legal matter” controversy in the Faculty Council meeting involving the mystery KMSF/College of Medicine Practice Plan Committee, and the mystery 2-inch file that was used in part to justify the eventual actions taken by the Medical Staff Executive Committee (MSEC) that tried and sentenced Dr. Kearney.

Speaking of the MSEC trial, I have to believe that Dr. Kearney’s lawyer could also argue the case that this committee met, judged and sentenced Dr. Kearney (barred him from the university campus, changed the locks on his office door, confiscated his personal information, demeaned him as a dangerous person to department staff, and placed him under a gag order) without him even being present at the trial. In fact he wasn’t even allowed to have a representative present at this trial. Furthermore, this so called trial included a jury of people all of whom had potential conflicts of interest, and evidence that was potentially tainted in that it included unsigned documents that purportedly were a part of Dr. Kearney’s personnel file. If this isn’t absence of due process then I don’t know what is. This might work well in Russia or China, but common, this is the USA (I think), and we hopefully still respect constitutional rights.

Well that’s it for now with respect to the update. Keep monitoring the blog for further updates.

41 Comments

Dan Noonan

2/17/2018 08:40:51 am

Yesterday while I was putting together this latest blog post a comment was submitted to the previous blog post. This comment submitted by "Does this involve kmsf?" states:

Critics say UK abused power by having state collect debts. Judge orders it to stop.
http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education/article200482274.html
Thank you for your comment Does. For those not interested in reading it, this is a Herald Leader article describing another university hospital legal matter that will most probably once again cost the university millions of dollars. If I am reading it correctly, it involves a situation where a patient, because of late reimbursement by Medicare, fell behind in her bills from UK Heathcare (UKHC). UKHC subsequently referred the patient to the Kentucky Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue then began to take money out of this patient’s wages. With respect to this money taken out, 80% went to UKHC to pay off the patient debt and the other 20% went to the Kentucky Department of Revenue as a “collection fee”. The person sued UK over this and the judge found in favor of the defendant ruling that the UKHC is not eligible to use the Revenue Department as a collection agency.

Perhaps more interestingly, the lawyer’s investigation of this practice revealed that:

“since 2010, the revenue department had collected about $47 million for UK HealthCare, including principal and interest. Then, the department tacked on another 20-25 percent for its collection fee, about $9.4 million. He believes many of the people affected are low-income.”

UK has not decided yet whether it will appeal this decision.

With respect to the question “Does” has, I do not believe that you can say UKHC billing without involving KMSF. Perhaps a more interesting question would be “who came up with this creative strategy” for tossing an anchor to those swimming in deep water? If I had to guess, it will probably be blamed on the infamous “Practice Plan Committee” that never met.

....kmsf?

2/18/2018 02:20:15 pm

Presumably the reason for the new motion to dismiss is that there is a new judge so its worth trying just in case he is more in the tank for UK than the previous judge.

My reason for asking about KMSF is that surely if UKHC and KMSF are enlisting help from the State of KY to collect debts then wouldn't that be inconsistent with their position that these are both independent of the state and the university (as has been debated at length in earlier posts)?

2/19/2018 04:42:07 am

Thanks for your comment kmsf. You are correct, Judge Ishmael retired at the end of January and I do not know who has replaced him. Hopefully it will be a judge that doesn't have season tickets to UK basketball games. Hmmmm, the way these guys are playing this year, season tickets might be an asset for Dr. Kearney.

Another good point. KMSF and UKHC using a state agency for bill collection would appear to contradict the university's contention that KMSF is and always has been independent from the university. This in spite of the fact that this company was founded and developed here at the university, this company's only client is UKHC, this company has in the past and probably still does tap into (free of charge) university personnel (e.g. UK's Human Resources Department and UK legal services) for managing their business, the company has in the past used campus facilities for running their business and the company's Board of Directors is composed of College of Medicine Chairs and Division Chiefs. Furthermore, this contention of being independent from the university only surfaced when folks like Dr. Kearney and Dr. Jones began questioning the financial practices of UKHC and KMSF and requesting Open Records information. This questioning all of a sudden evoked both a mad dash by "UK Lawyers" to declare KMSF independent from the university, and lawsuits against people and newspapers requesting open records searches and public audits. Recognizing their mistake and their conflict of interest, the company finally figured out that they needed to get outside lawyers if they wished to maintain this facade of independence and this avenue for hiding the details of what is being done with UKHC and this public university's revenue. Now it kind of looks like we might be able to tack on the avenue for collecting this revenue. To kmsf's point, this also produces a bit of a conundrum with respect to how and who actually fights this battle? According to the article the UK General Council Bill Thro declared that "UK has not decided yet whether it will appeal this decision". Does this mean that KMSF only participates in how UKHC (University of Kentucky) revenue is used and has nothing to do with respect to how this revenue is generated? I don't think I am buying into that.

Bill

2/20/2018 12:54:19 pm

Good to finally see another post to this blog. In reading this post one thing not touched on comes to mind, that being, “in the past three years since the removal of Kearney’s patient privileges, how many people might have been literally murdered by the actions of these UK/UKHC administrators (including the university president) and lawyers responsible for the removal of these privileges?” Trauma medicine is an art form that requires both a unique set of skills and perhaps most importantly “experience”. I think most people agree that Kearney, in spite of his potty mouth and sometimes demanding approach in the workplace, is one of the finest trauma surgeons to grace UK’s trauma ward. Mistakes cost lives in a trauma ward and talent and experience are the primary means of eliminating these mistakes. Therefore I think it is very fair to ask “how many people have died over the past 3 years since this MSEC committee banned Kearney from the trauma ward due to his alleged abrasive language, and how many of these lives might have been saved had Kearney’s experience and talent been there to treat these patients?” To facilitate their conscience, I am sure these administrators and lawyers will claim that talented trauma surgeons are a dime a dozen, but those of us that have been there know that is not so.

2/20/2018 02:59:11 pm

Thanks for the comment Bill. I don't think murder is the word I would use, but I get your point. As I have mentioned previously, when the Huntington trauma folks sent my graduate student to UK because his injuries were beyond their abilities, the physician that contacted me and described his many injuries (he thought I was a physician), ended the conversation with the statement that he would give him at best a 10% chance of surviving. Dr. Kearney's experience and expertise made that a 100% and today he is an executive at a biotech company. I suspect most people in a life or death situation care little about the language and manners of their trauma physician. I have to admit, it does seem like a rather obtuse decision to risk the quality of trauma care and the lives of trauma patients at your hospital simply because you don't like the vocabulary of your best trauma surgeon. Which brings us back to the question, "what's their real agenda here?

secret squirrel

2/21/2018 06:10:29 am

Always good to see Kearney Superfan Bill checking in with yet another extreme viewpoint. I am sure that UKHC Emergency Medicine keeps morbidity and mortality data and that a risk adjusted analysis of this would reveal if there are pre vs post Kearney differences. My guess is that there won't be.

Anyway, on a more interesting note I am hearing that new EVPHA Newman who you may recall ran the Duke Practice plan (Duke's version of KMSF) has been on the warpath having identified irregularities in the operation of KMSF. Unfortunately I have not been able to find out the details but I have been told that some of the higher level KMSF administrators are on the way out and will be replaced. If this is all true (and my sources have been 100% reliable in the past) it seems to me that this would be highly relevant to the Kearney whistleblowing case.

2/21/2018 09:06:42 am

Thanks for the comment and information “secret”. I agree, Bill’s comment is a bit over the top, but I have to admit that I never really considered the “potential” impact loss of a highly experienced and talented trauma surgeon might have the quality of trauma care. I know even in the profession I worked in, mistakes were part of the learning process and hopefully we learned from our mistakes and became better at what we were doing. Unfortunately in trauma, mistakes could often be much more costly than in the field of work I was in. Although technological advances over the years might skew some of these Emergency Medicine morbidity and mortality data, it would be interesting to hear the numbers for the 3 years prior to Dr. Kearney’s departure and the 3 years after his departure.

That is interesting news about the new EVPHA’s probe into potential irregularities in the operations of KMSF. I am wondering if it has anything to do with the Herald Leader article cited above or perhaps some other mismanagement buried in their books. As they advertise on their site: https://www.kmsf.com/service/billing-services.htm, KMSF is the billing arm for UKHC, and there does appear to be a documented inappropriate use of Kentucky Department of Revenue for debt collection. Of course there is always the Hazard Cardiology fiasco, or perhaps any documented money management decisions implemented by the mystery “Practice Plan Committee” that never met. Then again, it would be easy to hide something in one of their many vague category titles listed on their Financial Statement that can also be accessed at the above site. Unfortunately, as noted previously, university lawyers and subsequently outside lawyers have spent a lot of time and money to prevent anyone from accessing these data through Open Records laws. At any rate, it is good to hear that the new EVPHA is taking a serious look into the management decisions that both have been made and are being made over at KMSF, and apparently attempting to do something about it. Hmmm, having said that, this does bring into play “kmsf’s” comment above. UKHC EVPHA defining the administrative composition of KMSF would likewise suggest that KMSF is truly not independent from the university. But then again, we all know that to be true.

M&M

2/21/2018 03:37:11 pm

You appear to have pretty good sources secret squirrel. The word on the block is that the president of KMSF Marc Randal, the executive director of KMSF Carrie Cassis and the director of billing services at KMSF Peggy Halcomb have all been removed. If this information is accurate, this last one would strongly suggest that this may be in response to the billing lawsuit discussed in the Herald Leader article and posted above by kmsf.

Secret Squirrel

2/22/2018 03:28:59 am

That’s exactly what I have heard except that I think the recent billing/collections debacle is being used to justify this house cleaning and Newman realized very early on that KMSF was not on the up and up and wanted these people out. Don’t forget that although he wasn’t the Dean or the VPR of the Duke Health System he ran their practice plan so this is without a doubt something he knows about. Every single Academic Medical Center has a College of Medicine, a Healthcare Enterprise and a Faculty/Physician Practice Plan. It can’t be that difficult to make these operate in a lawful manner to serve the broader mission of the institution. Presumably the easiest approach would just be to hire people from the outside with experience who know how to do this properly. I expect that’s what is happening now.

2/22/2018 03:36:44 am

Thanks for the comment M&M. This would be a pretty big shakeup over at KMSF, but I'll believe it when I see something more official come out on it. Personally, I think all of this reflects the dire need for more transparency at this public university. Transparency helps to keep people, especially decision making authorities, on a path of legitimacy.

2/22/2018 04:21:05 am

Whoops, overlapped with your post Secret Squirrel. Thanks for this update. I hope what you and M&M have presented here is correct, because one thing both the hospital and the College of Medicine appear short of is "basic trust". I think that was clearly reflected in the Press-Ganey surveys. Hopefully this new EVPHA will facilitate changes in the transparency of how KMSF is managing the university income generated in our university medical center.

2/22/2018 04:59:34 am

This information is all correct. It may take a while to reach the public domain. Does Linda Blackford read this blog?

The Karpf regime rewarded middle management people with massive salaries in return for compliance with his plans and their willingness to squeeze the rank and file to be more “productive”. Newman is also flabbergasted at this, particularly coming from Duke where they hire and retain the best people, pay them moderately and make them pay for their academic activities with grants and contracts. We all know who these Karpf cronies are. Talking of which I wonder if the DeBeers have seen “Black Panther” yet?
Personally, I am not surprised that KMSF had to be “creative” with their accounting and aggressive with their billing and collecting to service the huge debt that Karpf saddled the institution with. Of course, there is also the cost of the buildings but those are largely commercial loans that are market rate and a necessity (if you agree that we needed a new hospital) so that may be more justifiable. My guess is that a lot of the old guard are on the way out and this is just the beginning of a process. As an example, Newman decided to replace Sibu Saha as CT surgery chief with Mike Sekela against the wishes of Zwishenberger and even though Sekela has been highly critical of the operation of the division and department. If Zwishenberger had any balls he would have resigned. But of course he doesn’t. I think he’s probably going to be the next big fish to get squished. And about time too.

2/22/2018 10:14:36 am

Thanks again for the comment and info Secret Squirrel. I hope you are right in your conjecture that “a lot of the old guard are on the way out”. In fact, as we all know, several have already departed the scene. I am a bit surprised that Dr. Zwishenberger is still here. His contract must be pretty strong because his salary is enormous, he sees few if any patients and as the Press-Gainey survey supports, very few people working under his leadership think him to be much of a leader.

As difficult as it may be for some to believe, I really like the new hospital and believe it to be a great addition to the university. As I have mentioned before, my problem is not with the new hospital, but perhaps with the avenue taken to achieve it. It was clear from all of the speeches that I heard Dr. Karpf give, that his priority was finding an avenue to that 500 million dollars needed to finish his legacy, the new hospital. When you combine this avarice with the avarice to keep secret the activities of the financial arm of the university hospital (KMSF), it’s not at all surprising to see stories of financial mismanagement surfacing after the fact. I think what some might fear is that Hazard Cardiology and Department of Revenue collection schemes might simply be the tip of the iceberg.

From Dr. Kearney’s lawyer’s perspective, I suspect these surfacing financial mismanagement problems also support their argument that the hospital administration and KMSF leadership wanted to silence an outspoken physician who had been working in this hospital for the past 25 years and may have been privy to some of the cracks in their armor of secrecy surrounding the approaches used in their management of hospital finances. Furthermore, I have to believe that this removal of some of the top KMSF administrators discussed above could only help support this argument.

2/22/2018 08:10:59 am

If anyone is wondering why KMSF had to cook the books just look at the compensation reported in this document.

http://kmsf.fusiondev.co/files/2016-06/kmsf-990-fye-6.30.15.pdf

2/23/2018 06:06:19 am

Thanks again for the comment and info Secret Squirrel. Yes these are impressive compensation figures, but last year’s figures

https://www.kmsf.com/files/docs/kmsf-form-990-return-FYE-6_30_2016.pdf

are even better. I mean Dr. Karpf’s $3,611,573 in 2015 is probably not out of line with what Calipari and Stoops are getting. As I have been advised multiple times on this blog, these figures are also not out of line with respect to what other university hospitals are paying. Another favorite is, “it is a competitive business and you get what you pay for”.

In spite of the fact that over half of the 32 administrators listed on pages 29-30 made over $500,000 in 2016, I am personally not bothered by these compensation figures. That is perhaps with the exception of a few (e.g. Dr. Tibbs’ $1,306,774 and Dr. Zwischenberger’s $972,701) that appear highly over valued, especially with respect to performance reviews. I think the areas that peak my curiosity most are the ones that fall under the “Other Income” or “Other Expenses” categories. This is traditionally where mismanagement can be buried. Well anyway, it is an eye opener and perhaps one of the motivations for encrypting financial management in what the hospital administration and university lawyers wish you to believe is a “private company”.

Coincidence?

2/23/2018 06:09:49 am

Just when the heat gets turned up on kmsf...

Report: Current, former UK players mentioned in documenReport: Current, former UK players mentioned in documents in federal investigation
http://www.kentucky.com/sports/college/kentucky-sports/uk-basketball-men/article201732504.html

Also

2/23/2018 06:11:37 am

Its pique not peak

2/23/2018 08:37:02 am

Thanks for the comments and info Coincidence. I saw this earlier today but the only relevance that I could envision it might have to the Dr. Kearney case and hospital mismanagement is the observation that it looks to be just another lawsuit for UK's busy legal department. On the other hand, being the basketball program and athletic department, don't they also have some private company that handles their finances and legal problems?

Thanks also for the editorial correction. There is the remote possibility that I wished the comment to be interpreted to mean something like "bring it to a maximum level" as opposed to "arouse", but I didn't. :)

You all know what to do...

2/27/2018 11:48:50 am

Good afternoon, College of Medicine faculty,

On March 7, we will be launching the 2018 Engagement Survey and highly encourage each of you to participate as this is a crucial opportunity to share your thoughts and opinions. This is an opportunity to not only share your thoughts about our institution, but to also improve our institution and ensure our future success as it relates to our clinical, research, and education mission.

Because of the feedback collected last year, we have taken concerted efforts to make change. A sample of these efforts include:
• Published the 2018-2024 strategic plan and initiated implementation;
• Increased research mentorship collaborations across the clinical and basic science departments;
• Launched BEST to identify and address major obstacles for our organization such as patient access, supply chain optimization, faculty effort and compensation, and position management;
• Increased communication efforts across the college and among our partners.

Each faculty member is a valued member of our team and your feedback is very important. Beginning March 7, please take the time to complete the survey. We do want hear what you have to say.

Thank you,

Robert S. DiPaola, MD
Dean, College of Medicine
Vice President, Clinical Academic Affairs

2/28/2018 04:37:59 am

Thanks for this information You. I see Dr. DiPaola likes lists. Maybe we could provide him with one here on the blog. Personally I am not really impressed with this list of his. Not being a physician even I perceive this list to be pretty much fluff. My reasons include:
- Publishing the strategic plan was basically obligate.
- The major push for promotion of research collaborations between basic scientists and physicians was initiated back when Dr. Evers joined the COM and has been ongoing ever since. So not much new there.
- Launch of BEST sounds like a good thing but I would much rather hear what this has "accomplished".
- Along these same lines, increased communication efforts sounds good but again what has it "accomplished"? Furthermore, I am sure some may view this point skeptically, because in the past most communication efforts were simply all "talk" by senior administrators and very little "listen".

Again, not being a physician I am unqualified to make a list for your needs and wants, but I know that when I was on the COM Faculty Council the physicians there voiced issues with DOEs (especially as they pertained to teaching credit) and RVUs. There were also the issues staff have voiced with the IBUs, which I hear may be going out the window, and then there are the issues of lack of transparency with respect to KMSF money management in the hospital (as discussed above), and of course the Dr. Kearney vendetta implemented by a select group of hospital administrators. In regards to this last item, whether you are for or against Dr. Kearney, I think it would be wise to recognize the mistake in endorsing basically a kangaroo court policy with zero due process. Some may feel that this could never happen to them, but I wouldn't be so sure of that. In fact, I suspect that Dr. Kearney is not the first physician to be strong-armed out of the hospital by the senior administration and their lawyers. He just happens to be the first to take on the Goliath.

So feel free to offer comments, criticisms and lists of your own, but please keep them constructive. I doubt that Dr. DiPaola reads the blog, but who knows.

RDP

2/28/2018 09:32:41 am

There is an effort to address the DOE problem but as you might imagine this involves even more of an emphasis on salary recovery through research or clinical productivity and making the DOE align with what people actually do so that it doesn't always have to add up to 100%. And you can probably guess that once DOEs don't add up to 100% then cuts in salary can't be far behind.

2/28/2018 12:38:30 pm

Thanks for the comment RDP. Although physician and basic science faculty DOEs differed, I remember when I was on Faculty Council that DOEs were a major point of contention between faculty and the administration. The administration (Dean deBeer and his puppets) rewrote submitted DOEs in a way that maximally rewarded profiting functions (RVUs and research funding) and minimized effort rewards for everything else (teaching and service). Perhaps not so coincidental was the fact that this push was occurring at the same time Dr. Karpf was seeking avenues for raising the 500 million needed for funding his legacy.

Felix Leiter

2/28/2018 07:45:16 pm

I agree that the "accomplishments" of the improved engagement are pretty weak. BEST may be a good thing, but we will have to see. Just having it exist means nothing.
Publishing the strategic plan? I thought they always did that. Don't most medical centers do that?

I really wish administrators were held to the same standard as physicians already are. You want to fire Kearney for being disruptive? Ok, fine. Then fire Zwisch as well for lying every chance he gets. Case in point: it is true as somebody mentioned above that Mike Sekela will be head of CT surgery, over the objections of Saha and Zwisch. Newman was being told that the reason the CT surgeons were leaving was because of Sekela! Finally, Newman realized the truth - CT surgeons are leaving due to poor leadership of CT surgery and surgery and not because of Sekela. Who fed Newman these lies? Pretty obvious. I once overheard Zwisch telling an administrator that "I tried everything I could to keep Reda (CT Surgeon) from leaving." Another lie. I can only assume Newman hopes he will just leave willingly as trying to force him out will be a huge mess? But where is the punishment for lying? Why is Newman listening in the first place to an administrator as opposed to clinicians who can tell the truth about the issues in CT surgery? He made the right decision in the end, but what took him so long? It's concerning.

Finally, I wish I had the guts to ask at one of these public forums how it makes sense to pay Karpf and Newman both full salary for doing the same job. Karpf did the job by himself last year and Newman will do the job by himself next year, but this year we need both and are paying them both full salary? And we are asked to be fiscally prudent? Hmmm...

3/1/2018 03:58:43 am

Thanks for the comment Felix. Some highly relevant feedback and very well stated. I am sure the CoM "valued members" reading Dr. DiPaola's memo now feel compelled to fill their survey with nothing but rave reviews on how much improved the hospital environment has become. On the other hand, some may take the view that talk is cheap. As several other blog commenters have put it in the past, physicians tend to speak with their feet.

This practice of giving our departing senior administrators big bonuses has been a tradition at UK. I remember they gave Wethington an office and something like a couple years of salary so that he could stick around and write his memoirs. I'm still waiting to see that best seller on my BookBub listings. At least with Dr. Karpf their is no pretense. We paid him 3.2 million last year and probably another 1.3 million next year to basically go on vacation. It's no wonder why they need these elaborate schemes for manipulating hospital finances.

3/3/2018 01:00:59 pm

The support for Sekela came from the cardiologists who were concerned that the scope and quality of the care that they could provide was being compromised by the CT surgeon exodus, Saha and Zwishenberger's inability to retain or replace the people who left and the the possibility that Seleka (who has a fixed term contract with no non compete) was going to leave and go back to work with the private hospitals.
As the UKHC moves to a service line model departments and department chairs are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I think Newman now views Zwishenberger as a temporary chair that will be replaced eventually. However with all of the other positions that have to be filled this will not be a priority unfortunately.
But this is somewhat understandable- for example look at the Peds Chair search fiasco.

Wendy

3/1/2018 11:01:00 am

In looking at the compensations for some of these administrators, I think we have found the real meaning behind the phrase, “the buck stops here”. And all this time I was thinking it had something to do with responsibility. As a new EVPHA, if Newman really wanted to get a good feel for the performance of his administrative body he should order performance evaluations for all department Chairs and Division heads. This would obviously need to be done through some outside agency to protect anonymity, should be offered to both physicians and staff and should include a narrative question or two that offers evaluators the opportunity to define their concerns.

3/1/2018 12:13:33 pm

Thanks for the comment Wendy. This is a good suggestion and I believe it is not the first time we have heard this proposed on the blog. Once again, when I was on the Faculty Council and there arose concerns about morale and the governing approaches used by our Dean at that time, Dr. deBeer, as you propose here, an evaluation of this nature was put together and administered by an outside agency. Due to the critical nature of the many responses in this evaluation we were never allowed to see them. The provost at that time, Dr. Riordan, met with the Council and said she would discuss the results with Dean deBeer. Shortly after this (I am guessing within a year) Dr. deBeer announced his plans to step down from this Dean position, although that didn't happen until several years later. In addition, in less than a year from this the provost announced she was leaving after 18 months on the job. I am not sure how much of this cost her the job or played into her decision to leave, but the bottom line being, although few people shed tears with Dean deBeer's departure, in loosing Dr. Riordan we lost the best faculty advocate provost this university had in all of the years I was there.

3/3/2018 01:03:44 pm

I think the new provost (Blackwell) might be reasonable- certainly someone needs to look at the silly/obvious strategic planning that the Dean is doing and force him to focus on some of the difficult things like recruitment/retention and aligning faculty salaries with compensation to generate funds for reserach instead of spending all of his time on meaningless nonsense.

3/4/2018 02:20:58 am

Thanks again for the comment RDP. With all of the controversy that has been going on here in the hospital and college, recruitment and retention of high quality physicians and researchers has to be a major challenge. Beyond word of mouth, with the availability of internet resources like news media, Facebook, Twitter, etc., it is impossible to bury things like the negative Press-Gainey survey results and the many ongoing lawsuits. Even this silly blog in its almost dormant state gets several hundred views a day, so I would also think that something like the Dr. Kearney controversy has and will continue to likewise play into this come/stay/leave decision making process. Therefore, I totally agree, the new EVPHA, Dean and provost have a major challenge ahead of them.

3/7/2018 04:31:11 pm

Just passing through again, but I can't help but think, "what a waste of university revenue". This Kearney matter should never have gotten this far. To begin with, the MSEC committee should never have had the authority to implement the punishments they did, especially in the manner in which they did it. This truly was an abuse of power and it is made even worse by the fact that the university lawyers not only sanctioned it but also participated in it. To try, convict and sentence a physician and university professor in a closed meeting without representation for the accused, using cherry picked and very possibly false documentation to develop the case, is totally against every code of law this country lives by. As I understand it, even the putative “recording” of these proceedings was somehow “LOST”, and all that remained were some very superficial notes taken by a secretary assigned to the meeting. Give me a break. This is basically the definition of “lack of due process”. Rather than prolonging this miscarriage of our justice, the university and its administration should simply admit to their injustice, give Kearney his privileges back, compensate him for their abuse of authority and get on with making this university a better representation of what a state university is suppose to be.

3/8/2018 01:51:14 am

Thanks for the comment DD. I, and I suspect the vast majority of our university familiar with this case, agree with what you say here. I have passed your sentiments on to Dr. Capilouto and Dr. Newman, for whatever good it might accomplish.

3/8/2018 06:32:15 am

We keep hearing about these "false documents" in Kearney's personnel file. UK has posted a bunch of letters here. Are these the false documents? At least one of them is signed by Kearney. Can someone identify which of these documents are false/fabricated? Or can someone point me to the relevant documents?

https://www.uky.edu/legal/sites/www.uky.edu.legal/files/Contracts/MSEC--Investigative%20Appendix_Redacted.pdf

3/8/2018 05:36:36 pm

Thank you for your comment RDP. I have made access to these documents available on previous blog posts. They were also most probably included in the MSEC trial, the attempt by the University lawyers to get Dr. Kearney’s license revoked, the attempt by the trauma patient to sue the university and the three attempts KMSF and the University have made to get this Whistleblower case dismissed. With the exception of the last item, which we won’t know about untill after the March 16 court date, all of these attempts at either justifying their legal actions or destroying Dr. Kearney’s career, have failed. This I can only interpret to mean that the authorities judging this evidence either felt it was too weak to give merit to the opposing attorney’s claims, or these documents didn’t fit very well with the counter evidence provided by Dr. Kearney’s attorney. That being of course much of the stuff discussed in the above blog post. I can’t help but think that the people judging these cases run into the same problem many of us have, that being you can’t condone and reward an activity for 25 years and then do a 180 and attempt to use it to destroy a career.

I guess more to your question, beyond the many totally redacted documents, which we can’t even consider, I do see a reprimand document dated December 12, 2012 from Dr. Zwischenberger’s office and signed by him, but clearly unsigned by Dr. Kearney. I feel fairly certain that this document was included in the material provided to the MSEC committee. This document might also have been part of the mysterious 2-inch file of complaints about Dr. Kearney’s behavior that Dr. Zwischenberger claims in his deposition to have given to Dr. de Beer and Dr. de Beer claims in his deposition to not know anything about. From my perspective, just the presence and use of any unsigned document of this nature to support their claims of this behavioral history, let alone a 2-inch folder, is enough to discredit all of the evidence.

Hcsiwz

3/9/2018 04:08:03 am

I would like to submit this 2-inch file that I have that supports Paul Kearney’s claim that these university administrators have targeted him because of his attempts to expose money mismanagement by KMSF. Although the few documents that I have yet to fully redact are unsigned, trust me, I am an honest church-going individual.

3/9/2018 05:52:08 am

Thanks for your comment Hcsiwz. I'm pretty sure I get your point here. As many of us, including the Herald Leader and school newspaper, have experienced, the university lawyers love redaction. I fully understand the use of redaction for the protection of an individual's identity, but when they return documents that are totally redacted and attempt to use those documents to support their legal claims, then I'm not buying it. The same goes for unsigned documents. For all we know, these documents could have been constructed 2 days ago. Furthermore, if they are unsigned it means either the person the document was directed towards did not receive it, or the person the document was directed towards refutes the claims being made. In the above unsigned document from Dr. Zwischenberger's office, he had 6 years to get that document signed and never did. That brings up the question, when exactly was this document really created?

Beyond this document, in Dr. Kearney's lawyer’s response to the University's motion for dismissal it reads:

"Of the documents culled from Dr. Kearney's personnel file, two deserve stand alone attention: First, the "DRAFT" undated, unsigned document that contained false information such as reprimands and remediations that never occurred. (Hearing, McDowell, Vol. II, 5/28/15, p. 131-133, Exhibit, 31). Dr. Powell questioned why General Counsel provided such a document. (Deposition. McDowell, 1/26/17, p.66-67. Exhibit 32). Second, the January 7th 2009 Perman letter that was never sent to Dr. Kearney (Kearney Hearing, Vol. II, 5/28/15, pp. 128-129, Exhibit 33).”

Having said all that, the bottom line for me comes down to not whether Dr. Kearney is guilty of the charges being made against him, but rather both the timing and method of adjudicating these charges. The proximity of the actions taken to the Faculty Council meeting wherein the EVPHA threatened Dr. Kearney; the closed door MSEC trial with the Dean giving testimony that Dr. Kearney was an “imminent danger to patients, staff, residents and colleagues”; the kangaroo court proceedings used to convict Dr. Kearney; the over-the-top punishment meted out by this kangaroo court to silence Dr. Kearney and the threats by the General Council to ruin Dr. Kearney's career all cumulatively point to a miscarriage of justice that surpasses any guilt or innocence claims. In my mind, the preponderance of evidence clearly support Dr. Kearney’s claim that this administration and these lawyers are trying to shut him up for reasons that go well beyond punishment for a history of bad language while saving lives.

3/9/2018 07:48:40 am

So the only instance of documented misbehavior that Kearney admits to is the 2010 one where he signed the letter? Are the other instances completely made up or are we splitting hairs by claiming that they just were not properly documented or admitted to? Or are we back to the issue that this is all either operating room banter or acceptable because of all of the "life saving" that was going on?

Also, surely its time for "Bill" to check in and suggest that UK murdered Pearse Lyons by not having Kearney taking care of him :-)

3/9/2018 09:07:12 am

Thanks for the comment RDP. As I mentioned above, in my mind, these unsigned documents are not the real issue. They are simply part of the bigger and more important issue, that being the avenue taken by the hospital and University administration to destroy the career of and drive out a faculty member of the University. Even if all of the documentation and accusations should be true (which I am fairly certain they are not) the University administration and lawyers went way beyond constitutional rights and values when they conducted a trial and sentencing in the absence of the accused and in the absence of any testimony or documentation on the accused behalf. The prejudice nature of the whole proceedings nullifies any and all aspects of the verdict, and dictates that this verdict should be thrown out and Dr. Kearney's status at the University and the hospital should be returned to whatever it was prior to the actions taken. Furthermore Dr. Kearney should be compensated for the pain and suffering, legal fees and loss of revenue that resulted from this abuse of authority by the University administration and lawyers.

I truly hope Dr. Kearney wins his case. Not because I endorse the behavior issues, but rather that I feel this battle has relevance to all University of Kentucky faculty. Faculty rights and the right to due process are clearly at issue here. Furthermore, a win here might by necessity also increase transparency in our hospital management of University revenue. Some blog commenters appear to fear this, but as I see it, transparency translates into honesty, and the many lawsuits arising recently in KMSF would suggest that we could use that.

Finally, I must add that Pearse Lyons was a good friend and I will miss him.

3/9/2018 10:35:03 am

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. What I am worried about is that the issue at stake is Kearney's clinical privileges, not employment or being "driven out" of the Univesrity. Could someone reading the blog with legal expertise cite some case law that identifies enforceable court decisions in favor of plaintiffs suing for reinstatement of their clinical privileges? I can find lots of examples where these kinds of complaints have been dismissed but of course these generally are about issues of professional competency, not behavior. Presumably Kearney's attorney thinks he can win otherwise why would he have taken the money :-)?

3/9/2018 11:28:40 am

Thanks for the comment RDP. Good question. Although they did somewhat have to return his academic privileges and get rid of the gag order, it will be interesting to see, should he win this, whether there would be an obligation to return his clinical privileges. Personally I believe should this 3rd attempt at dismissal fail, the University will do everything it can to keep this thing from going before a jury.

Blob

3/12/2018 01:43:51 pm

Personally I hope Kearney wins his case so I can start swearing and calling people sh** for brains with impunity!
I saw that the oral arguments are now set for 2pm March 20. Can anyone show up and watch this? Also are you sure this is a jury trial? I thought these hearing were before a judge.

3/13/2018 03:28:01 am

Thanks for the comment Blob. Unfortunately for you this lawsuit is not about "calling people sh** for brains with impunity". That is what the hospital and KMSF administration (really one and the same) and the lawyers that the University is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars would like you to think the lawsuit is about.

On to more important matters. I have yet to hear that the timing of this hearing has been changed so I will have to check on that. As I understand it, this Motion being filed by the University lawyers is simply the 3rd attempt by the University to keep the lawsuit from going to a jury trial. If it is thrown out like the others I believe that the University-hired lawyers would be relegated to either taking this to a jury trial or settling out of court.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Update on the Dr. Kearney Case

Leave a Reply.

UKy College of Medicine Discussions