PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PARTIAL OR FULL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to
cause a tangible psychological injury
.at 1053 (emphasis added).
1. Credential Threat
. Here, the evidence incontrovertibly establishes that the Credential Threatdid cause Plaintiff a tangible psychological injury, and that it impaired his job performance so greatlythat he had to request reduced work schedule medical leave in January 2006. [PMF 75].
When FormerMedical Staff President Scott Ragland (“Ragland”) was asked “Is that a serious thing, for a physician atKern Medical Center, to have a letter of reprimand or dissatisfaction entered into their medical staff file?” he responded “Of course”. (Ragland Depo., 8/22/08, 264:25-265:4). Plaintiff’s expert, LawrenceWeiss, Chair of Pathology at City of Hope National Medical Center, observed of the Credential Threat:“I have never seen a physician’s privileges threatened for such an insignificant and patently unwarrantedreason.” [DMF 106].Worse yet, Defendants have admitted they were on notice since 2003 that Plaintiff suffered fromdepression.
[DMF 62, 63, 64, 65]. Former Medical Staff President and psychiatrist Eugene Kercher(“Kercher”) testified as PMK representative on behalf of Defendant County that he was familiar with thesymptoms of depression and had formed the opinion that Dr. Jadwin was depressed over the course of years of observing and working with him. [PMF 136]. Yet, Defendants engaged in a course of conductthat was calculated to wreak maximum havoc on Plaintiff’s disability.First, on October 17, 2005, days after the monthly 1-hour cancer conference held on October 12,2005 (“October Conference”) – at which Plaintiff had reported his patient care concerns to medical staff officers, doctors and residents regarding a radical hysterectomy that had been conducted based ondeficient outside pathology reports, as well as the need for systematic, confirmatory review of outsidepathology reports prior to undertaking surgery [PMF 89] – the medical staff officers retaliated by callingPlaintiff into a meeting where they humiliated him for making his “political statements” [DMF 114],
Note, a reprimand is an adverse action sufficient to trigger a
hearing. See 2 Cal. C. Regs. § 51.1.
There is no legal requirement that Plaintiff notify each and every officer at KMC of his disability. In
Kimbro v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
889 F.2d 869 (9th Cir., 1989), the court held that notice to Plaintiff’ssupervisor was imputed to the person(s) who made the final decisions regarding the adverse action. Seealso
California Fair Employment and Housing Commission v. Gemini Aluminum Corp.
122 Cal.App.4th1004 (2004) (notice to ANY supervisor of plaintiff’s limitations is sufficient to trigger theaccommodation duty). It is undisputed that Plaintiff told his former supervisor, Marvin Kolb, in 2003 of his depression disability and was thereafter permitted to go on reduced work schedule medical leave.
Case 1:07-cv-00026-OWW-TAG Document 288 Filed 12/08/2008 Page 3 of 23