You are on page 1of 7

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 1 of 7


Attorneys and Counselors at Law

James JosephBreen
Member of Florida & Georgia Bars

5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 39, Alpharetta, Georgia 30022

Tel. No. 770-740-0008 Fax: 770-740-9109

September 1,2005 VIA EMAIL Richard H. Deane, Jr. Neutral Arbitrator Jones Day Suite 800 1420 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Ref: Arbitration of James J. Murtagh, M.D. v. Emory and Grady Dear Mr. Deane: This letter identifies and summarizes Dr. Murtagh's pending claims and requests. It is my understanding that you have been provided with copies of prior communications between the parties pertinent to this arbitration, including but not limited to, Dr. Murtagh's September 2003 Arbitration Demand stating his claims as of that time, his December 2003 Complaint for damages in Superior Court and letters from me, as Dr. Murtagh's counsel, transmitting copies of his Complaint to Emory and Grady and stating that it shall constitute an amendment and addition to the claims stated in Dr. Murtagh's September 2003 Arbitration Demand1 in the event that arbitration of the Complaint was compelled. Dr. Murtagh's claims before the Superior Court were further articulated in Dr. Murtagh's Affidavit of Additional Information Pertinent to the Statute of Limitations Issues, a copy of which has been provided to you. Finally, Dr. Murtagh has filed his Amended Complaint with the Superior Court and will provide a copy to you. Accordingly, in the event that these arbitration proceedings go forward, Dr. Murtagh requests awards in his favor with respect to each of the claims he has made thus far, as well as those stated herein.

1 Emory and Grady each raised Dr. Murtagh's unresolved September 2003 Arbitration Demand as one of the reasons that the Court should compel arbitration.

Exhibit L

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 2 of 7

I .

Preliminary Matters. a.) Fraud in the inducement as to the Settlement Agreement and its Paragraph 13 Arbitration Clause. Dr. Murtagh has filed his Amended Complaint in the Superior Court stating claims for declaratory and injunctive relief that he does not believe are properly the subject of arbitration, and as the Court permitted in the Consent Scheduling Order. A copy of Dr. Muitagh's Amended Complaint will be provided to you. In it, Dr. Murtagh seeks a declaratory judgment that the Settlement Agreement, including the Paragraph 13 Arbitration Clause, was induced by fraud on the part of Emory and Grady and is rescinded. Dr. Murtagh believes that, under applicable law, the issues of fraudulent inducement and rescission are determined by the Court. However, in the event that the Court determines that this or any claim or request for relief stated in the Amended Complaint should be determined by the Arbitrator, Dr. Murtagh requests that he be granted such awards and relief in arbitration as are related to any of the matters that the Court determines must be arbitrated. b.) Waiver of Emory's Arbitration Rights. Dr. Murtagh unsuccessfully asserted before the Superior Court that arbitration had been waived in the present case because, at least Emory, had pursued certain rights and remedies in the judicial process that were inconsistent with its right to compel arbitration. Dr. Murtagh believed that the "judicial process" waiver issue was properly a matter to be determined by the Court. There exists, in addition to the waiver issue already determined by the Court, an issue as to whether Emory waived its right to arbitrate during the arbitration process itself by refusing to cooperate in , and by delaying, the selection of a neutral arbitrator and the commencement of the arbitration process following its receipt of Dr. Murtagh's September 2003 Arbitration Demand. Dr. Murtagh believes that this waiver issue should be determined by the Arbitrator. Accordingly, Dr. Murtagh asserts and intends to present evidence that Emory waived its right to arbitrate the disputes between the parties by failing and refusing to comply with the Settlement Agreement's Arbitration provisions following its receipt of Dr. Murtagh's September 2003 Arbitration Demand and by pursuing remedies in a separate "John Doe" action after it knew that Dr. Murtagh was the "John Doe" in

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 3 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 3 of 7

question. Dr. Murtagh also asserts that Grady has, at all times, acted in concert with Emory and pursuant to a common interest, and is bound by such waiver. c.) Request for stay of arbitration proceedings pending determination of rescission and waiver issues. In the event that it is determined that Dr. Murtagh is entitled to trial by jury as to some or all of his claims, then arbitration of those same claims will be unnecessary. Accordingly, Dr. Murtagh requests that arbitration be stayed pending a determination of the rescission and waiver issues. d.) Request for relief as to claims and allegations in Dr. Murtagh's Original Complaint, Amended Complaint, September 2003 Arbitration Demand and Additional Claims. To the extent that it is determined that Dr. Murtagh is not entitled to a judicial determination or trial by jury on any or all of his claims and allegations, Dr. Murtagh requests the award of damages, other non-injunctive remedies, and other appropriate relief with respect to the matters pled in his Original Complaint, his Amended Complaint, his September 2003 Arbitration Demand and such additional claims that he brings in this arbitration proceeding.


Breach of the 2001 Settlement Agreement.

a.) Emory and Grady have each repeatedly breached their obligations to, in good faith, provide favorable references with respect to Dr. Murtagh. Their acts include, but are not limited to, Dr. Alexander's and other Grady and Emory representatives' refusal to timely and truthfully respond to reference requests, Emory and Grady representatives falsely communicating to callers that Dr. Murtagh was never employed or was an object of disrepute such that he could not be discussed, and otherwise communicating by action, word, deed and innuendo false negative information and impressions about Dr. Murtagh. These actions commenced at least as early as June 2002 and have been committed continuously since then.

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 4 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 4 of 7

b.) Emory and Grady have each repeatedly breached their obligations under the Paragraph 18 non-disparagement clause by filling the public record with, and otherwise communicating, false and demeaning statements about Dr.Muitaghysmental competency and ability to practice medicine and by false statements about adverse peer reviews of Dr. Murtagh. This includes the statements in the St. Paul litigation, on Emory controlled web sites, statements to other physicians and employees at Emory and Grady and the statements alleged by Dr. Murtagh in his Original Complaint and Affidavit of Additional Information. Emory physicians with official knowledge of the Settlement Agreement and the disputes between the parties further breached Paragraphs 7, 8, and 18 by disclosing information, including false and disparaging statements that Dr. Murtagh had been subjected to adverse peer review, to Emory physicians who were not authorized access to this information, including to Dr. Ahmed, in or before January 2003. Similarly, Grady Chief of Borad of Trustees Robert Brown made repeated disclosures in violation of the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, including to Manuel Maloof in or about October 2002. c.) Emory and Grady have breached their implied duties of good faith and other obligations under the Settlement Agreement by repeatedly publishing false, disparaging and/or negative information about Dr. Murtagh and about the Settlement and prior issues between the parties such that Dr. Murtagh's reputation would be severely and irreparably damaged. Moreover, the actions of Emory and Grady constituted a waiver of any rights they may have otherwise had to enforce the provisions of Paragraphs 7, 8 and 18 with respect to Dr. Murtagh. d.) Upon information and belief, Emory also failed to comply with its obligation to investigate and correct its fitness for duty and other specified policies and procedures pursuant to Paragraph 14 of the Settlement Agreement.

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 5 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 5 of 7


Tort Claims. a.) Emory and Grady have each falsely represented repeatedly that Dr. Murtagh was the subject of adverse peer review proceedings about his mental competency, "DNR" issues and his ability to practice medicine. In addition, both Emory and Grady falsely represented in court proceedings and to Dr. Murtagh that each of them had in fact conducted peer review proceedings relating to him when in fact they never did. This egregious fraud has damaged Dr. Murtagh and has precluded him from working in his profession. The false statements were intentional, were intended to cause Dr. Murtagh and others to rely upon them and were reasonably relied upon to Dr. Murtagh's detriment and damage. b.) Emory's and Grady's actions with respect to Dr. Murtagh have been part of a larger effort to silence individuals who desire to report misconduct and patient care and safety issues to government investigators and officials and to assist them in identifying other witnesses and evidence. This includes their use of judicial process in an effort to use the Settlement Agreement in an unlawful manner, and in a manner inconsistent with the exceptions to Paragraphs 7, 8, and 18 that are implied by law and which permit Dr. Murtagh's conduct and without which the agreement would be invalid. These actions further include, false statements to government investigators, Bell South employees and others to the effect that Dr. Murtagh is a computer "hacker" or "spooferyY and that he has committed criminal acts relating to Emory's computer systems. c.) Dr. Murtagh is entitled to damages for defamation, defamation per se, slander, slander per se, libel and libel per se with respect to each and every malicious, false or disparaging statement made by Emory or Grady representatives since at least September 12,2002, the one year period preceding the Demand for Arbitration. Each such defamatory remark was made by, or at the direction or with the

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 6 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 6 of 7

encouragement of, officials of Emory and Grady occupying positions sufficient to cause Emory and Grady to be responsible for such statements. This includes, but is not limited to, defamatory statements made by Robert Brown, then Grady's Board Chairman. d.) Dr. Murtagh is entitled to damages for tortious interference with his advantageous business and professional relationships caused by Emory's and Grady 's intentional, wrongful, false, defamatory and disparaging statements and communications to persons and entities with which Dr. Murtagh possessed business and professional relationships. e.) Dr. Murtagh is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages because Emory's and Grady' actions have been intentional, willful, wanton, outrageous and designed to destroy Dr. Murtagh's ability to practice medicine and to assist government in matters of public interest f.) Dr. Murtagh is entitled to damages for Grady's and Emory's intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by their actions. g.) Dr. Murtagh is entailed to an award of attorneys fees and costs because of Emory's and Grady's bad faith actions pursuant to O.G.C.A. 5 13-6-11.


Other Claims.

a.) Emory's and Grady's actions constitute a continuation of their wrongful retaliation against Dr. Murtagh in violation of 3 1 U.S.C.5 3730 (h) and , therefore, Dr. Murtagh is entitled to an award of "reinstatement with the same seniority status such employee would have had but for the discrimination, 2 times the amount of back pay, interest on the back pay, and compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination, including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees." Accordingly, Dr. Murtagh will seek an award under 3 1 U.S .C.5 3730 (h) and a

Case 1:09-cv-00752-HTW Document 20-3 Filed 06/07/10 Page 7 of 7

Richard H. Deane, Jr. September 1,2005 Page 7 of 7

finding that he is entitled to pursue these claims before the United States District Court. This claim is stated in an abundance of caution in the event of a determination by the United States District Court with jurisdiction over this claim that it is subject to arbitration. Dr. Murtagh does not waive his right to seek judicial relief for this claim. b.) Dr. Murtagh reserves the right to assert additional claims and amend his claims, including but not limited to an action under the "R.I.C.0" statutes of the United States and Georgia in the event that discovery in these proceedings establishes that the actions of Emory and Grady were part of a pattern of unlawful activity contemplated by those statutes. In the event that you have any questions, please contact me.

Cc (Via Email): Theodore B. Eichelberger, Esq. Todd D. Wozniak, Esq.