CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413 A. CABRAL BONNER, …4. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to th e laws of the State of California, California Health and Safety Code §1278.5,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES1

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413A. CABRAL BONNER, ESQ. SB# 247528LAW OFFICES OF BONNER & BONNER475 GATE 5 RD, SUITE 212SAUSALITO, CA 94965TEL: (415) 331-3070FAX: (415) [email protected]@aol.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFSTHRESSA WALKER, GEETA SINGH, M.D. andKAI IHNKEN, M.D.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

THRESSA WALKER, GEETA SINGH, M.D.and KAI IHNKEN, M.D.

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; SANTACLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER;HOLLISTER BREWSTER M.D.; ALFONSOBANUELOS, M.D. and DOLLY GOEL, M.D;PETER GREGOR, M.D. and DOES 1 through50, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. C. V. 10-04668

AMENDED COMPLAINT FORDAMAGES

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OFTITLE VII and FEHA; RETALIATIONAND DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATIONOF HEALTH & SAFETY CODESECTION 1278.5; RETALIATION INVIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983;INVASION OF PRIVACY; SLANDERPER SE; INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONO F E M O T I O N A L D I S T R E S S ;RETALIATION LABOR 1102.5;VIOLATION EQUAL PAY ACT;DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OFTITLE VII and FEHA-DISPARATETREATMENT; DISCRIMINATION-HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT-TITLE VII, FEHA; FRAUD; INDUCINGB R E A C H O F C O N T R A C T ;INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITHC O N T R A C T U A L R E L A T I O N S ;INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITHP R O S P E C T I V E E C O N O M I CADVANTAGE; BREACH OF IMPLIEDCOVENANT OF GOOD FAITH ANDFAIR DEALING

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


PLAINTIFFS allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. PLAINTIFFS THRESSA WALKER, GEETA SINGH, M.D. and KAI IHNKEN,

2. M. D. bring this AMENDED COMPLAINT to vindicate their federal and state

constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

3. PLAINTIFFS THRESSA WALKER (hereinafter "Ms. Walker"), GEETA SINGH,

M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. SINGH"), and KAI IHNKEN, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Ihnken"), (collectively

referred to as Plaintiffs) allege that DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (hereinafter

"COUNTY") and DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

(hereinafter "SCVMC") and managing agents of DEFENDANTS retaliated against them for

engaging in protected activity and speech, and treated Ms.Walker and Dr. Singh differently based

on their gender, female, and also treated Ms. Walker differently based on her union activities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the laws of the State of California, California

Health and Safety Code §1278.5, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Title VII of the

1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28

U.S.C. § 1331.

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district because Plaintiffs’ injuries, damages and

harm, including the violation of Plaintiffs’ Civil Rights occurred in this judicial district. Further,

one or more of the DEFENDANTS reside, are headquartered and conduct business in this judicial

district.

6. DEFENDANTS are subject to suit in this County and Judicial District and are public

entities who regularly employ 15 or more persons.

7. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC conduct business and are government

agencies operating under the color of state authority in this judicial district.

PARTIES

8. PLAINTIFF WALKER is a citizen of the United States of America and is a resident

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


of San Jose, CA. At all times here in relevant, Ms. Walker was a Medical Administrative

Assistant II ("MAA") in the Division of Cardiology at DEFENDANT SCVMC.

9. PLAINTIFF GEETA SINGH is a citizen of the United States of America and is a

resident of Cupertino, CA. At all times here in relevant, Dr. Singh was an employee of

DEFENDANT SCVMC.

10. PLAINTIFF KAI IHNKEN is a permanent resident of the United States of America

and is a resident of Los Altos, CA. At all times here in relevant, Dr. Ihnken was contracted with

DEFENDANT COUNTY under a contract between DEFENDANT COUNTY, SCVMC, and

STANFORD HOSPITAL and CLINICS (STANFORD).

11. COUNTY is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of

California, doing business in California as a government subdivision under color of State authority

and subject to the laws of this State and the United States of America

12. DEFENDANT DR. HOLLISTER BREWSTER is an individual residing in

Hillsborough, CA and is the Chief of Cardiology of DEFENDANT SCVMC. DEFENDANT DR.

ALFONSO BANUELOS is an individual residing in the county of Santa Clara and is the Chief

Medical Officer of DEFENDANT SCVMC. DEFENDANT DR. DOLLY GOEL is an individual

residing in the county of Santa Clara and is the Medical Director of DEFENDANT SCVMC.

DEFENDANT DR. PETER GREGOR is an individual residing in the county of Santa Clara and

is a Cardiologist employed by DEFENDANT SCVMC.

13. At all relevant times herein, DEFENDANT SCVMC was operated by supervisors,

managers, and/or managing agents of the COUNTY, and as such was prohibited by law from

harassing and retaliating against employees, contractors, subcontractors, and other medical staff on

the basis of complaining about patient care or on the basis of gender or union activities.

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR

14. All of the described conduct, acts, and failures to act are attributed to agents and

managing agents of DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC. Said acts, conduct and failures to act

were within the scope of such agency and employment. At all times relevant herein, each participant

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment and agency.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

15. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies by filing charges of

discrimination with appropriate federal and/or state agencies and by complying with the Government

Code. Plaintiff Walker filed charge of discrimination with the EEOC Claim on 10/15/2009. Plaintiff

Walker received a right to sue letter from the DFEH on 10/21/09. Plaintiff Walker will amend this

complaint when she receives her federal right to sue letter. Plaintiff Walker filed a tort claim in

compliance with the Government code on 03/25/2010. Plaintiff Walker received rejection letter

from Santa Clara County pertaining to her Tort Claim on 04/14/2010.

16. Plaintiff Dr. Singh has filed complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and

Housing (“DFEH”) and to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December

31, 2009, as well as to the County of Santa Clara Employee Service Agency (“ESA”) Equal

Opportunity Division (“EOD”) on March 25, 2009 and December 18, 2009.

PLAINTIFF Singh also filed an Administrative "Tort Claim" with the Clerk of the Board

on June 30, 2010, a protected act. PLAINTIFF Singh received a letter of rejection and a notice of

return letter without action in reference to her "Tort Claim" on July 22, 2010.

Plaintiff Ihnken has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing an Administrative “Tort Claim”

on October 22, 2010. Plaintiff Ihnken will amend his law suit to reflect his receipt of a response to

his tort claim.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION EXCLUSIVITY DOES NOT APPLY

17. Each and every wrongful, injurious, intentional, willful, discriminatory, harassing

act and failure to act, by DEFENDANTS were not normal incidents of employment and were

outside the scope of the employment bargain. Thus, Workers Compensation exclusive remedy set

forth in California Labor Code § 3600 et seq. will not preempt, nor bar PLAINTIFFS’ right to

recover for damages set forth herein.

THRESSA WALKER’S STATEMENT OF FACTS

RETALIATION FOR COMPLAINTS ABOUT PATIENT CARE AND SAFETY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


18. Ms. Walker is employed by DEFENDANT COUNTY at Defendant Santa Clara

Valley Medical Center as a Medical Administrative Assistant II (MAA) in the Division of

Cardiology, the lead Administrator in the division. Ms. Walker has been in this position since she

became a County employee in June of 2003. For many years, Ms. Walker enjoyed working as an

MAA, and her job continues to be both rewarding and fulfilling. However, in the past few years, the

hostility directed toward Ms. Walker in the work environment has mounted to an escalating,

intolerable level because she has engaged in statutory protected activity under Health and Safety

Code Section 1278.5. This Code provides, in pertinent part, the following: "The Legislature finds

and declares that it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses,

members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of

suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to

protect patients and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with

ensuring that health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistle blower protection

applies primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility...."

19. On Feburary19, 2009, Ms. Walker filed a complaint with The Joint Commission of

Accreditation Health Organizational.("JCAHO") . In this complaint, Ms. Walker reported facts

concerning substandard patient care and safety to the Joint Commission on , resulting in the death

of a patient in the Stress Lab. The initial treating cardiologist had advised against subjecting this

patient to stress testing because of the patient's fragile health conditions and the patient's expressed

objection to undergoing the stress testing because of his family history of heart attacks. Other

cardiologists ignored patient's wishes and the advice of the initial treating cardiologist and subjected

the patient to stress testing. The patient suffered Cardiac Arrest during the stress testing and died.

20. On March 7, 2009, Ms. Walker notified the government entity, JCAHO, of suspected

unsafe patient care and conditions regarding an 80 year old male patient (MH) with a history of

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery who presented to emergency room with chest pain and shortness

of breath. Medical testing showed the patient suffered a heart attack. A cardiologist failed to

diagnose the heart attack. This cardiologist reviewed the Echocardiogram test and again failed to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


diagnose the heart attack. The cardiologist left the patient on the regular medicine floor where the

patient suffered yet another heart attack. The patient was transported to the Coronary Care Unit

where he died.

21. On September 7, 2010 Ms. Walker filed a complaint with SCVMC Customer

Services concerning the quality of care for her sister. On September 9, 2010 and September 10,

2010 she filed an addendum to the complaint. Also, on September10, 2010, she filed a complaint

with Jeff Smith, the County Executive Officer.

DEFENDANTS' ACTS OF RETALIATION

22. On September 2010 only weeks after Ms. Walker filed her complaint, Defendants

retaliated against Ms. Walker by initiating a false and erroneous allegation and complaint against

her that she violated HIPAA by reviewing her sister’s health records on 9/27/10. Ms. Walker alleges

on information and belief that Defendants knew the allegations made against her were false since

Ms. Walker had a corrected authorization signed by her sister, allowing her access to the progress

notes in her medical records..

23. As a further act of retaliation, Defendants initiated a sham investigation into the

alleged violations but refused to allow Ms. Walker to meaningfully participate and failed to

recognize the signed authorization. This act took place after Ms. Walker filed a complaint with the

Customer Service Department and the County Executive, pertaining to substandard care for her

sister’s admission of 9/4 - 9/11/10.

24. Ms. Walker alleges on information an belief that the false and erroneous allegations

will negatively affect her ability to receive promotions and merit-based pay raises. Ms. Walker also

alleges on information and belief that Defendants intend on terminating her employment using the

false, erroneous and retaliatory HIPAA violation allegations as a basis for the termination.

25. On October 5, 2010, Defendants retaliated against Ms. Walker by demanding a

meeting with her and the Compliance Officer regarding a false allegation that she had engaged in

a HIPAA Violation. The Chief Union Steward was present and the minutes were recorded and

dictated by another party during this meeting. The Compliance Officer stated the SCVMC was

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


investigating a HIPAA violation complaint against Ms. Walker, regarding her sister's medical

records. The Compliance Officer ignored the written and newly submitted authorization by Ms.

Walker's sister to review the progress notes in her medical records.

26. In further retaliation against Ms. Walker for complaining about patient care and

safety, the Compliance Officer filed an accusation against Ms. Walker with the State, falsely

alleging that Ms. Walker had violated patients' privacy on 9/27/10. In a rush to judgement in

determining Ms. Walker’s guilt prior to the meeting, Ms. Walker’s position with the County of Santa

Clara was compromised. One HIPAA violation is grounds for termination. The Compliance Officer,

Anna Huges, provided a copy of a computer print out from “Invision” as evidence that Ms. Walker

reviewed her sister’s billing information. As an employee in the Division of Cardiology Ms. Walker

input patient billing, submitted in a program called “Invision,” and billing was submitted for her

sister, patient M, by the consulting physicians and input by Ms. Walker. Patients were notified by

mail that their medical information was disclosed on 09/27/10. Ms. Walker was shown a copy of

the log sheet for 9/27/10, with her sister’s name written down for a procedure. Ms. Walker’s sister

was not a in-patient or out-patient on 9/27/10.

27. From February 2009, up to and including, to date, DEFENDANTS COUNTY and

SCVMC have engaged in an energetic pattern and practice of harassment and retaliation against Ms.

Walker by engaging in conduct such as ignoring numerous business communications and requests

on behalf of patients and staff; sending out public shotgun emails, falsely accusing Ms. Walker of

being derelict in her employment duties; sending out public emails disclosing confidential

information which should have been strictly limited to human resources personnel, thereby invading

Ms. Walker's constitutional right to privacy; by increasing Ms. Walker's workload immediately

following her return from an on-the job, Workers’ Compensation work related stress leave of

absence. Dr. Hollister Brewster, one of Ms. Walker's managers, stated to another physician words

to the effect: "If I could fire Thressa I would...".

28. On May 12, 2009, Ms. Walker who had become an elected union steward in April

2009 had the opportunity to speak before the Board of Supervisors to expose Dr. Alfonso Banuelos’,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Chief Medical Officer, mishandling of the layoff process and not adhering to the Collective

Bargaining Contract. Ms. Walker was able to submit supporting evidence to substantiate her

allegation on 5/20/09 and 6/15/09.

29. On March 13, 2009, Dr. Geeta Singh wrote a letter to Supervisor Yeager surrounding

the attempt to delete of two Medical Administrative Assistants (MAA) from the Division which

would only leave one MAA in the Division of Cardiology. Dr. Banuelos neglected to inform the

Physicians and obtain their input and sent an email to discourage the physicians from attending the

Board of Supervisors meetings to speak on behalf of the MAAs. . The loss of the 2 MAAs would

have resulted in loss of productivity, and also affected the quality of patient care. Ms. Walker, in

her position as union steward, provided proof to support the retention of the MAAs positions,

resulting in a reversal of Dr. Banuelos’ decision.

30. On April 15, 2009, Ms. Walker participated in an investigation regarding Dr. Geeta

Singh allegations of discrimination and unfairness, relating to the Division of Cardiology schedule

with Thomas Gradowski at the Santa Clara County Equal Employment Office .

31. On May 11, 2009, Ms. McVey was notified by the Site Organizer, Andrea Hightower,

to meet to discuss Ms. Walker & other MAAs “working out of class”, performing billing in the

Patient Business Service Department for other departments. Ms. Walker was assigned the task of

organizing files for a Department other than her Department of Medicine. Ms. McVey refused to

meet to discuss this issue.

32. Dr. Banuelos hostility towards Ms. Walker increased after she, as a union steward,

successfully assisted several employees with their grievances against Dr. Banuelos. On July 21,

2009, Ms. Walker represented Janine Kinsey, MAA I in the Division of Cardiology against Dr.

Banuelos and Edna McVey’s attempt to move her to another position. Management’s failures on

multiple occassions--8/5/09, 09/03/09, 12/02/09-- in its efforts to transfer Ms. Kinsey resulted in

retaliations against Ms. Walker.

33. On August 18, 2009, and again on 10/5, 10/6, 10/7, 10/8, 10/9, 12/24, 12/28/09,

1/4/10, 1/6/10 Ms. Walker, in her capacity as union steward, attempted to meet in good faith

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


regarding working conditions. Ms. McVey refused to meet and did not honor the contract agreement

to meet in good faith. These were acts of retaliation because of Ms. Walker’s participation in

protected activity, including union activities and testifying in a discrimination hearing.

34. On October 05, 2009. Ms. McVey, Ms. Walker supervisor, accused her in a public

email of not logging in or out for union steward meeting and when representing employees as a

union steward. This accusation was false. Ms. Walker responded that she emailed Ms. McVey prior

to leaving, , informed her co-workers, logged in and out, and reminded Ms. McVey that she, Ms.

Walker, received approved release time from either Labor Relations or Human Resources. Ms.

McVey disregarded the contract by continuing to send insistent public emails.

35. On November 13, 2009, Ms. Walker filed a Workman Compensation Stress Claim

for “work related stress.” This was done after 2 visits to her private physicians for anxiety in

October and November.

36. On December 16, 2009, as a further act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster sent a public

email, stating “I have been legally advised to have an independent witness present whenever you

and I occupy the same space or speak with each other.” These remarks were malicious, humiliating,

offensive, and matters that should have been discussed in the privacy of human reesources.

37. On March 1, 2010, as a further act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster sent a public email,

stating "Thressa has too many clients and non-cardiology related assignments to fulfill her duties

to the Chief of Cardiology. Who are these clients? Should an audit of her time distribution during

the 8 hours workday be done? I am taking this to a higher level as well as time wasted on E-mails.

Do some people have portable computers?" These allegations are false, malicious, humiliating, and

matters that should be discussed in the privacy of the human resource department.

38. On May 21, 2010, Dr. Brewster ignored numerous emails and notes from Ms. Walker

regarding completion of patient C’s disability paperwork. Dr. Brewster’s refusal to communicate

prevented the patient from receiving disability. Finally Ms. Walker had to go contact Edna McVey,

her manager, for assistance. Ms. McVey acknowledged Ms. Walker’s email, but failed to

communicate further. As an act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster’s failure to communicate with Ms.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Walker compromised patient care.

39. On May 26, 2010, Dr. Brewster ignored emails and notes from Ms. Walker, to

provide authorization for patient C to travel, due to her heart condition. After many failed attempts,

Ms. Walker had to contact Edna McVey, her manager, for assistance. Ms. McVey acknowledged

Ms. Walker’s email, but failed to follow up. Ms. Walker had to obtain the help of a nurse in the

Cardiology clinic. As a further act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster’s failure to communicate with Ms.

Walker compromised patient C’s care.

40. On information and belief, Dr. Brewster has publicly stated that if it were left to him

he would not hire any women. Further on information and belief, Dr. Brewster has created a hostile

work environment on the basis of her gender, female, and her union activities. Also, Dr. Brewster

subjected Ms. Walker and other women in the cardiology department to frequently sexually explicit

"jokes" and comments, despite objections that this conduct was unwelcome and offensive. Dr.

Brewster further retaliated against Ms. Walker because she engaged in protected activity by

testifying favorably for a female physician who had brought allegations of discrimination and sexual

harassment against Dr. Brewster.

41. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC retaliated against Ms. Walker for engaging

in the protected activity . This adverse employment action was a direct result of Ms. Walker's

protected activity and as such is retaliation.

DR. GEETA SINGH’S STATEMENT OF FACTS


42. Dr. Singh is employed by DEFENDANT COUNTY at Defendant Santa Clara Valley

Medical Center as a Physician in the Division of Cardiology, specializing in the field of a

Cardiologist. Dr. Singh has been in this position since she became a County employee in January

1998. For many years, Dr. Singh has enjoyed working as a physician, and her job continues to be

both rewarding and fulfilling. However, in the past few years, the hostility directed toward Dr.

Singh in the work environment has mounted to an escalating, intolerable level because she has

engaged in statutory protected activity under Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. This code

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


provides, in pertinent part, the following: "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public

policy of the state of California to encourage patients, nurses, physicians, members of the medical

staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care

and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients and in order

to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health care is safe.

The Legislature finds and declares that whistle blower protection applies primarily to issues relating

to the care, services, and conditions of a facility...."

43. On February 17, 2009, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker, a Medical Administrative

Assistant who supports her in the Division of Cardiology, with a detailed description of substandard

patient care. The case was summarized in a format which identified Dr. Singh as the author. On

February 19, 2009, Ms. Walker filed a complaint with The Joint Commission on Accreditation of

Healthcare Organizations .("JCAHO"). In this complaint, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker with facts

concerning substandard patient care and safety resulting in the death of a patient in the Stress Lab

(AW). Dr. Singh was the initial treating Cardiologist who advised against subjecting this patient

to stress testing because the standard of care in the community is to do a Cardiac Catheterization.

In addition, the patient stated he wanted a Cardiac Catheterization because of his strong family

history of heart disease. The subsequent treating Cardiologist ignored the patient's wishes, and

argued with the patient in the presence of the Medical Resident. The subsequent Cardiologist also

ignored the advice of the initial treating Cardiologist and subjected the patient to stress testing. The

standard protocol in the Stress Test Lab is for the nurse to perform the stress test without a

Cardiologist present; however, on this occasion the nurse insisted on a Cardiologist being present

during this high risk test. The patient suffered Cardiac Arrest during the stress test and died. In

previous years, Dr. Singh had reported substandard care of cardiac patients. For example, on

February 05, 2007, Dr. Singh sent a letter to Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, Chief Medical Officer,

concerning the substandard care of a cardiac patient.

44. On March 5, 2009, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker, a Medical Administrative


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


care. The case was summarized in a format which identified Dr. Singh as the author. On March 05,

2009, Ms. Walker filed a complaint with The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations .("JCAHO"). In this complaint, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker with facts concerning

substandard patient care and safety, resulting in the death of a patient in the Coronary Care Unit.


unsafe patient care and conditions regarding an 80-year- old male patient (MH) with a history of

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery who presented to the Emergency Room with chest pain and

shortness of breath. Medical testing showed the patient suffered a heart attack. A Cardiologist

reviewed the Echocardiogram test and failed to read it correctly, and also failed to diagnose the

indications of a heart attack. This Cardiologist left the patient on the regular medicine floor where

the patient suffered cardiac arrest. The patient was transported to the Coronary Care Unit where he

died.

46. On May 28, 2009, Dr. Singh sent an email to Dr. Banuelos, Dr. Jensen and Diane

Von Merta with a cc to the attorney who attended the meeting , to report concerns about patient care

and safety. On May 27, 2009, a pregnant patient was scheduled for a Transesophageal

Echocardiogram, and was kept without eating in excess of twelve (12) hours. Dr. Brewster had

agreed to cover for Dr. Singh who was the Echo Attending for the day because she had to leave on

a family emergency. When the Anesthesiologist and the Obstetrician had prepped the patient, the

Echo Sonographer paged Dr. Brewster. He did not respond, and could not be found. Dr. Singh, who

had left the facility to attend a family emergency, was paged and had to return to perform the test.

On June 02, 2009, Dr. Banuelos sent a response email to Dr. Brewster’s public email, in which Dr.

Banuelos expressed appreciation for Dr. Brewster’s “ excellent communication”. This response

followed Dr. Brewster’s public email, explaining that he couldn't be reached because some areas

of the hospital had dead zones and his pager did not go off. Neither Dr. Banuelos nor Dr. Brewster

acknowledged the fact that Dr. Brewster was well aware of the scheduled test and had failed to care

for the patient. In comparison and in contrast, on September 28, 2009, Dr. Gregor sent an email to

Dr. Singh stating, "I have tried to page you for two hours." In a Division meeting the same day, Dr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Gregor blasted Dr. Singh for not answering her pager. Dr. Gregor did not give Dr. Singh the

professional courtesy to respond to the accusation.

47. On June 4, 2009, Dr. William Jensen, Chairman of the Department of Medicine,

requested that a Cardiologist review a case (JS) reported to JCAHO. The case of JS was

summarized in a format which identified Dr. Singh as the author. Ms. Walker had reported the case

to JCAHO previously via the JCAHO website. On February 28, 2009, the patient JS had presented

to the Emergency room with Atrial Fibrillation and a life threatening slow heart rate. The patient

was admitted for Cardiac monitoring. The consulting Cardiologist failed to recommend a

Pacemaker. The patient was discharged on March 03, 2009, without a Pacemaker. On March 08,

2009, patient JS presented to the Los Gatos Community Hospital with the same diagnosis of Atrial

Fibrillation and a life threatening slow heart rate. The patient was admitted and had a permanent

Pacemaker inserted.

48. On October 02, 2009, Dr. Singh attended an appointment she had requested with

Anna Huges, Compliance Privacy Officer, and reported substandard patient care, and also

complained of manipulation and alteration of Medical Records in the Division of Cardiology.

49. On October 28, 2009, Dr. Singh attended an appointment she had requested with Dr.

Jeff Smith, County Executive, and reported to him substandard patient care in the Division of

Cardiology.

DEFENDANTS' ACTS OF RETALIATION

50. On March 04, 2009, Dr. Hollister Brewster, Chief of Cardiology, implemented a

policy change regarding stress test consents as requested by Dr. Dolly Goel, Hospital Director. Dr.

Brewster failed to communicate this new policy to Dr. Singh who was assigned to cover stress

testing on March 05, 2009. On March 05, 2009, Dr. Peter Gregor, a Cardiologist in the Division of

Cardiology, erupted in an angry outburst when Dr. Singh asked why Cardiologists were now doing

stress test consents. Dr. Gregor tersely stated: "There has been a policy change." Dr. Singh

acknowledged her unawareness, and Dr. Gregor yelled, "Now you have been told." This incident

happened on speaker phone, in the presence of a patient, and the Cardiology and Nuclear Medicine

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


staff. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Gregor appeared in the Echo reading room where Dr. Singh was

located, and proceeded to erupt in a violently angry outburst, yelling and screaming at Dr. Singh

while walking towards her in a threatening manner, backing her into a corner. He was screaming

and ordering her: "Go to Nuclear Medicine right now and do the consents!!!" When Dr. Singh, in

fear, attempted to explain, Dr. Gregor belligerently interrupted: "Stop! Stop right there!"

51. On March 05, 2009, Dr. Singh reported Dr. Gregor's actions , via email, to Dr. Dolly

Goel, Medical Director, Dr. William Jensen, Chairman of The Department of Medicine, and Dr.

Hollister Brewster, Chief of Cardiology. Dr. Jensen arranged an appointment to meet with Dr. Singh

on March 06, 2009 to obtain the facts. Dr. Singh attended the meeting with Dr. Tom Wentzien,

Cardiologist, and Dr. Michael Nathanson, Associate Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery, to support her.

Dr. Jensen stated he would investigate the facts. In response, Dr. Michael Nathanson stated:

"There is a cancer in the Division of Cardiology that you are trying to treat with an aspirin." After

completion of the investigation, the only remedial action taken was that Dr. Gregor's office was

moved two (2) doors down from Dr. Singh’s office, after previously being one door down.

52. On March 06, 2009, Dr. Singh reported this incident to Cynthia Perry in the Human

Resource Department, and Dr. Singh was referred to the Protective Service Department. Cynthia

Perry escorted Dr. Singh to see Chief O'Brien in the Protective Service Department. Chief O'Brien

stated that he could take the complaint but could not investigate the complaint, explaining that all

he could do was to submit a copy of the complaint to Dr. Alfonso Banuelos.

53. On March 06, 2009, Dr. Gregor sent out a public email regarding the incident on

March 05, 2009, containing many false statements. In the public email, Dr. Gregor referred to Dr.

Singh as his supervisor. He further stated: "I saw Dr. Singh literally doing nothing,". This was a

false and slanderous statement. Furthermore, in this email, Dr. Gregor falsely complained about

Dr. Singh.

54. On March 24, 2009, Dr. Gregor persisted with additional inappropriate behavior such

as forcefully barging into Dr. Singh’s office through a closed door, unannounced and without

knocking. As soon as Dr. Gregor noticed that someone was present in the office with Dr. Singh, he

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


immediately left, without saying anything.

55. On March 25, 2009, Dr. Singh reported both incidents of March 05, 2009 and March

24, 2009 to Diane Von Merta, Director of Equal Opportunity, in written format via fax.

56. On April 24, 2009, Dr. Singh attended a meeting scheduled by Dr. Alfonso Banuelos,

Chief Medical Officer, in which he and Diane Von Merta, Director of Equal Opportunity, were

present. Dr. Singh was not provided with an agenda; therefore, she attended the meeting with an

Attorney. In the meeting, Dr. Banuelos stated, "Dr. Gregor has apologized to you." This statement

was untrue. Dr. Gregor had not apologized. Dr. Banuelos stated, "Dr. Jensen had a meeting with

Dr. Singh and Dr. Gregor to discuss the incident." This statement was untrue as there had been no

such meeting. Dr. Banuelos accusingly asked Dr. Singh: "Why did you go to public safety?” Dr.

Banuelos concluded the meeting by emphatically commanding Dr. Singh to follow the chain of

command by going to Dr. Jensen with any concerns.

57. As an additional act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster exerted his power as Chief by

removing Dr. Singh from seeing her clinic patients in Cardiology for the entire month of September.

This negatively affected patient care, as well as Dr. Singh’s productivity.

58. As a further act of retaliation, on September 28, 2009, Dr. Brewster changed the day

schedule in the later morning on a day when Dr. Singh had already begun her scheduled procedures.

Dr. Brewster and Dr. Gregor subsequently accused Dr Singh in a Division meeting of performing

a Transesophageal echo that she should not have performed because it was not on the schedule. Dr

Brewster had changed the schedule by assigning Dr Gregor to this echo but failed to inform Dr

Singh. This affected patient care and Dr. Singh’s ability to rely on a set schedule.

59. On March 05, 2009, Dr. Gregor sent an email to Dr. Singh, criticizing her on an echo

she had dictated on this day. This email was sent approximately one hour after the echocardiogram

was read. Dr. Gregor was assigned to the in-patient areas and this echo was an out-patient. It was

unclear and inappropriate that he was checking Dr. Singh’s echo dictations since she is the Medical

Director of echocardiography and reports to the Chief of Cardiology, Dr. Brewster, not to Dr.

Gregor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


60. From March 2009, up to, and including, to date, DEFENDANTS COUNTY and

SCVMC have engaged in an energetic policy, custom, pattern and practice of harassment and

retaliation against Dr. Singh and other health care providers who report complaints of substandard

patient care and patient safety to government entities. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC have

retaliated, and continue to retaliate as continuing violations of law, against Dr. Singh and other

medical providers by engaging in conduct such as ignoring numerous complaints of substandard

quality of patients care, and permitting supervisors and others to harass, intimate, and publicly

humiliate those physicians and medical staff who report issues of substandard patient care and

patient safety. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC’s pattern, practice, custom and policy of

retaliating against medical providers who report complaints of patient care and safety violations

have caused Dr. Singh's constitutional rights to be violated, including her right to privacy, right of

free speech and right of liberty. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC further violated Dr.

Singh’s right of privacy by publicly discussing and publishing private human resources matters in

public meetings and public email communications to non-human resources personnel. Dr. Brewster

stated to members of the staff: "If it were up to me, I would not hire any woman. Women cause all

the problems and become pregnant."

61. On March 06, 2009, Dr. Gregor sent another public email in which he stated, "Dr.

Singh is openly defiant of authority, and in my opinion does not establish harmonious working

relationships with others working here." In the same public email he stated, "as for the identity of

the anonymous hacker of our heart lab, who sent echocardiograms off to a third party (JCAHO), I

have read Homer, and I cannot be attacked by " no man. " If anonymous has no identify, anonymous

does not need to be handled with kid gloves."

62. On September 02, 2010, Dr. Brewster sent an email to Dr. Singh, with a cc to Dr.

Banuelos and Dr. Jensen in response to her question about the weekend schedule. Dr. Brewster

falsely accused Dr. Singh of screaming because she complained of patient care and safety. Dr.

Brewster stated in his response, in reference to Dr. Singh: "It is quite annoying to hear the

screaming." This was an inappropriate slander to be broadcast to Dr. Singh’s colleagues.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


63. On September 22, 2010, as a further act of retaliation, Dr. Gregor sent a public email

in reference to a new worksheet for the Echo Sonographers in which he falsely stated, "Dr. Singh

held a sudden secret meeting in early September, to which no other cardiologist was invited. This

is in defiance of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and ICAEL guidelines. Since that meeting the echo

techs are fearful of getting into "big trouble" if they perform echoes according to 21st century

guidelines." These allegations are false, malicious, humiliating, and matters that should be discussed

in privacy with Administration.

RETALIATION: DISPARATE TREATMENT

64. On April 4,2010, in a meeting with Dr Alfonso Banuelos, Diane VonMerta, her

attorney and Dr. Singh herself, Dr Banuelos asked Dr. Singh to sign a new job contract, a document

labeled "Job Expectations and Responsibilities for Section Chief of Echocardiography and Cardiac

Imaging". This was actually a job contract. He wanted Dr. Singh to sign it so they could then use

it to fire her.

65. She asked Dr William Jensen, Chairman of Medicine if other departments and

physicians were being asked to sign similar documents. Dr Jensen said no, they were not. She did

not sign a job contract when she was hired in 1998 and at no point since that time had she been

asked to sign a contract. Dr. Brewster, Dr. Jensen and Dr. Banuelos did not require any of the other

similar situated physicians or any men to sign the same contract. They treated the other male

physicians more favorably in terms of their employment terms and conditions.

66. Dr William Jensen, Chairman of Medicine, had asked Dr. Singh to sign this document

previously, on February 10, 2008 during a meeting with him.

67. Dr. Brewster took away some of Dr. Singh's job responsibilities as Medical Director

of Echo. On September 29, 2009, Dr Brewster reassigned Dr. Singh's job duties as Medical Director

of Echo. He did not take away her title but did reassign her job duties. Dr. Singh was the physician

who was doing Transesophageal Echoes and Stress echoes, he changed them to "unassigned duties".

This affected her professionally, and it affected her certification in Echo. Dr. Brewster did not take

away the job responsibilities of any of the other similar situated physicians or any men.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


68. Dr. Brewster gave other, male Cardiologists administrative time off, but did not do

so for Dr. Singh. On December 4, 2009, in a Division Meeting, Dr. Singh gave a document showing

the admin time given to the other Cardiologists to Dr William Jensen, Chairman of Medicine. On

December 13, 2009, Dr. Singh sent an email to Dr Banuelos about the admin time given to the other

Cardiologists, with the document attached. Dr Banuelos denied that there was admin time and

claimed that the other Cardiologists were working during that time, but he could not show what they

were doing because they were not on the schedule.

69. Dr. Singh filed for Workers Comp for work related stress and Dr. Brewster refused

to sign her form. On January15, 2010, Dr. Singh filed the form, and her supervisor was required

to sign the form within 24 hours. After one (1) month, Dr Brewster had still not signed it. The

Evidence of this discriminatory treatment against Dr. Singh is documented in a letter from Workers

comp dated on February 2, 2010 and email dated February 22, 2010.

70. On December 18, 2009, Dr. Singh met with and reported to Thomas Gradowski, the

County Equal Opportunity Officer, discriminatory conduct by Dr. Brewster and Dr. Gregor. She

presented evidence verifying that Dr. Brewster had made allegations against her in a letter, and Dr.

Gregor had done the same in an email. She also presented data that the schedule was unfair.

71. On January 5, 2010, Dr. Singh received a letter from County Counsel, falsely

accusing her of being disruptive, causing an unharmonious work environment and refusing

mediation, all false statements. The letter accused Dr. Singh of "unwillingness to recognize the

contributions of her colleagues". The letter also accused her of not answering her page. The letter

accused Dr. Singh of not taking care of patients and of attending to non-essential tasks.

72. DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC retaliated against Dr. Singh for engaging

in protected activity. This adverse employment action was a direct result of Dr. Singh’s protected

activity and as such is retaliation and discrimination.

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT / HARASSMENT

73. Dr Hollister Brewster created an intimidating and hostile work environment against

Dr. Singh and women by telling explicit sexual jokes frequently and routinely, giving a sexual

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


connotation to everyday issues. This was a regular part of the work environment in the Division of

Cardiology at Valley Medical center for years, from 2006 up to and including this year of 2010.

74. Dr. Brewster would tell these sexual jokes in front of the staff in Cardiology, in the

Cardiology Office, in the Cardiac CatheterizationLab and other locations in the hospital. One

example: In Urgent Care, Dr. Brewster related a “joke” “that he treated a patient with an infection

in his genital area. Dr. Brewster asked the patient how he got the infection. The patient replied that

he was having sexual relations with a pig. Dr. Brewster then asked if the pig was a male or female.

Dr. Brewster said the patient became very upset and said it was a female pig because he was not gay.

Dr. Brewster laughed profusely about his joke, in which he had humiliated a patient. A second

example: There was a ceiling leak in one of the Cardiologist's offices from a liquid. The

Gastroenterology Department occupied the floor above Cardiology, so the Cardiologist was

concerned about the nature of the liquid. Dr Brewster related that he asked the Cardiologist if he

had sex with his wife and that he told the Cardiologist that sex is much dirtier than any liquid

leaking from a ceiling. A third example: On March 10,200 in a Group Facilitation Meeting with

Gloria Dunn and all the Cardiologists, the group was discussing four (4) personality types and

watched a video clip of a dominant personality type. On the video, the dominant personality was

played by a woman. After the video concluded, Dr Brewster quipped: "I guess that's what you call

a bitch". Dr Gregor agreed with him and said: "I know that type, my ex-wife”. Both Dr Brewster

and Dr Gregor started laughing uproariously. Gloria Dunn remained silent. Dr. Singh silently

expressed disdain. The meeting ended with Dr. Wentzien and Dr. Daggubati not agreeing with Dr.

Brewster.

75. Dr. Brewster also made remarks about women that portrayed them in a negative

light. Dr Brewster would routinely comment on how emotional women were and would make

derisive comments about female patients. He stated that if it was up to him he “... would not hire

women because they cause all the problems and they become pregnant." On February 6, 2008, in

personal communication from several male physicians, it has been confirmed that Dr. Brewster

stated many times: "The problem in the Division is the women". "The women are fighting." "If it

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


were up to me I would not hire any women".

76. On May 17, 2010, Dr Singh was in the Cardiac Catheterization Lab. Dr Brewster was

discussing the schedule with Merle (Cath Lab Nurse). During the conversation, Dr Brewster said

again that if it was up to him he would not hire women because they become pregnant and ...... The

conversation was witnessed by Mary Herman (Cath Lab tech). This is similar to statements Dr.

Brewster has expressed over the years, stereotyping and denigrating women.

77. Dr. Brewster’s sexually explicit “jokes” and comments were and are unwelcomed,

hostile and offensive to any reasonable woman. Dr. Singh ( and other women) expressed objection

to Dr. Brewster comments by words or conduct, but Dr. Brewster’s sexually explicit conduct was

continuing, persisting, predictably recurring, and always hostile to women. Whenever Dr. Singh

encountered Dr Brewster making such sexually offensive remarks, she would leave the work area

immediately, whenever possible.

DR. KAI IHNKEN’S STATEMENT OF FACTS


78. On July 1, 2006, The Plaintiff, Dr. Kai Ihnken, was contracted by DEFENDANT

COUNTY at Defendant Santa Clara Valley Medical Center as the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Dr. Ihnken held this position since July, 2006, when Stanford entered into a contractual agreement

with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC). On July 01, 2009, the contract between

Stanford and SCVMC was extended through June 30, 2011, with Dr. Ihnken as the primary

physician and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery and a beneficiary to the contract.

79. On July 17, 2007, Stanford officially changed Dr. Ihnken’s contract, in order to

formalize and recognize his responsibility at SCVMC as the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery. Dr.

Ihnken has been vigorously engaged in approaching Hospital Administration, in particular Dr.

Banuelos, Dr. Goel and Dr. Adams, with concerns regarding the quality of patient care.

80. During the months of May and June of 2006, Dr. Ihnken met with Dr. Hollister

Brewster, Chief of Cardiology, in anticipation of assuming his position as Chief of the Stanford

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Cardiothoracic Surgery program at Valley Medical Center. At that time Dr. Brewster voiced that

“They are against Stanford.” After being on staff for only three(3) to six (6) months, Dr. Brewster

spoke to Dr. Ihnken’s partner, Dr. Michael Nathanson, and stated, "Kai is a bad surgeon and he

needs to go." Dr. Moritz, Chief of Anesthesia, spoke similarly.

81. For the last several years, Dr. Ihnken has endured a hostile working environment that

has escalated to an alarming and excruciating level because he has engaged in statutory protected

activity under Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5. This Code provides, in pertinent part, the

following: "The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of the State of California

to encourage patients, nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify

government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. For purposes of this section,

discriminatory treatment of an employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care

worker includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion, suspension, or any unfavorable changes

in, or breach of, the terms or conditions of a contract, employment, or privileges of the employee,

member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the health care facility, or the threat

of any of these actions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients and

in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health care

is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistle blower protection applies primarily to issues

relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility…."

82. On September 22, 2007, Dr. Ihnken sent an email to Stanford to point out an incident

that took place in the Operating room, involving Dr. Moritz, Chief of Anesthesia. Dr. Ihnken had

pre-arranged for Dr. Dave Peterson from the Stanford Program to assist with a surgical procedure,

and Dr. Moritz asked who would assist Dr. Ihnken. When Dr. Ihnken replied, “I’ve got it covered,”

Dr. Moritz began yelling in front of all those present, “Kai, you are bullshitting me,” and stormed

out. Dr. Moritz further obstructed Dr. Ihnken's attempt to comply with Title 22 by denying Dr.

Peterson permission to assist, an action which put the patient at risk.

83. On April 4, 2008, Dr. Ihnken complained in an e-mail to SCVMC and to Stanford

administrators regarding a patient with left main disease (”widow maker”) who had died over the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


weekend. Dr. Ihnken had requested to operate on the patient on the Friday before, but the

administrators denied his request.

84. During the years 2008 to 2010, Dr. Ihnken filed multiple incident reports pertaining

to patient care via the hospital “UHC Patient Safety Net Administration Review”.

85. On February 02, 2009, Dr. Banuelos sent an email to Dr. Ihnken and his colleague

Dr. Nathanson, requesting a meeting to discuss a consult on a patient (WG) in the Coronary Care

Unit (CCU) with a Type A aortic dissection. On February 03, 2009, Dr. Ihnken sent a response to

Dr. Banuelos with a cc to Dr. Nathanson to bring to his attention the potential medical-legal liability

for SCVMC connected with an official report on patient WG that had not been completed by the

Cardiologist in a timely manner. Dr. Ihnken also pointed out that this was not an isolated incident.

Dr. Banuelos stated in response, “I don’t expect a response from this email, as emails do not serve

a further purpose with this communication. Rather we will discuss further when we meet as a

group.” Such discussion never occured. He cautioned not to point fingers elsewhere and

discouraged pointing out deficiencies in patient care. In contrast, Dr. Banuelos never mentioned any

concern for the quality of care for the patient.

86. During 2009, Dr. Ihnken received outcome data for 2008 from the quality

department at VMC. It showed that mortality and major complications for CABG were 0% at VMC,

which is significantly better than outcomes nationwide and California wide (1-3%). The same holds

true for valve cases and outcomes for 2009.

87. Despite the known superb patient outcomes and the fact that Dr. Ihnken had doubled

the caseload, without any support from the administration, Dr. Brewster continued to slander Dr.

Ihnken to others by stating, “Kai is a bad surgeon”. Dr. Brewster’s statements included: “Kai is a

bad surgeon with bad outcomes”, “we are forced to perform multi-vessel stenting because CT-

Surgery does not want to operate”, “CABG is not a good option in this hospital b/o bad outcomes”,

“there are poor results and delay in treatment”. He often made these remarks in front of the cath lab

staff in the area where routinely company representatives who work in the greater bay area and

beyond, as well as nurses who work in other hospitals, were present. The professionally damaging

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


remarks were being distributed outside VMC. One of the non-VMC cardiologists, (Dr. Mehrdad

Rezae), who works in several hospitals in the community, called Dr. Ihnken and informed him that

Dr. Brewster had just then personally told him these remarks. Dr. Rezae told Dr. Ihnken that he was

very surprised about these remarks, as he has known Dr. Ihnken for many years first hand, from

working together at Stanford and at Regional Medical Center, and he knows about Dr. Ihnken’s

timely, high quality care with very good outcomes.

88. On March 13, 2009, Mitchell Buellesbach, a representative with the Labor Relations

Department, sent an email to Dr. Ihnken that Dr. Banuelos would not be assigning Physician’s

assistants on-call for Cardio Surgery, based on business needs. Dr. Ihnken in an email on March 13,

2009 brought this matter to the attention of Dr. Gregg Adams, Chair of the Department of Surgery,

and in a response via email, Dr. Adams stated that this matter was a “non-negotiable issue,” no

mid-levels would take call, and it was solely Dr. Banuelos’ decision. Dr. Banuelos based his

decision not on the need of patients at SCVMC, but on a business consideration. Essentially this

meant that in an emergency situation there might not be appropriate staff on call.

89. On March 13, 2009, Dr. Geeta Singh forwarded an email to Dr. Ihnken that she had

written to Supervisor Yeager, regarding the deletion of two Medical Administration Assistants

(MAA) from the division which would only leave one MAA in the Division of Cardiology.

90. On May of 2009, Dr. Ihnken wrote to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in support of

the MAAs whom Dr. Banuelos wanted to lay off without talking to the physicians. As a further act

of retaliation, Dr. Banuelos had not consulted with the physicians or asked for their input, and in

addition sent an email in which he actively discouraged physicians and staff from attending a Board

of Supervisors meeting or from speaking on behalf of the MAAs. The loss of the two( 2) MAAs

would have resulted in loss of productivity, and would also have adversely affected the quality of

patient care. Due to the tireless work and proof put forward by union steward Ms. Thressa Walker

that Dr. Banuelos was not honoring contractual agreements by removing the MAAs, the deletion

was averted, to the benefit of patient care and continuity of service.

91. On July 27, 2009, Dr. Ihnken sent an email to Dr. Banuelos and other Hospital

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Administrators, stating, “In follow-up to our conversation I want to make you aware of several

incidents from last week. These are not isolated events, but constitute an ongoing pattern of

disconcerting conduct.” Dr. Ihnken stated, “The pattern of continued compromise in patient safety

has been brought up repeatedly, including in our quarterly leadership meetings. Regretfully, and to

my profound disappointment, no significant improvements have been accomplished.” Dr. Ihnken

listed patients SJ, EC, RT, & AS as examples, with an outline of how patient care was compromised.

As an act of retaliation, Dr. Banuelos responded in an email to Dr. Ihnken and ccd to Dr. Adams and

Dr. Goel, stating, “there needs to be appropriate two way professional communication and as the

attending physician, that is also your responsibility, it appears in at least one of these cases.” There

was no other response to the concerns voiced by Dr. Ihnken.

92. On July 29, 2009, Dr. Ihnken sent an email to Dr. Banuelos and other Hospital

Administrators to inform them of five critically ill post-op heart patients in the Intensive Care Unit

(ICU) that were left for one physician on call to take care of; the physician happened to be Dr.

Ihnken. There was no ICU physician covering these high acuity patients, nor was there any in-house

personnel coverage with cardiac training. This constituted a severe breach in patient safety, and did

not meet desirable standards of care. On July 30, 2009, Dr. Banuelos’ response was accusatory

towards Dr. Ihnken and he stated as his only concern, “emails with hospital discussions as these

should not be sent to personal email accounts.” Dr. Banuelos did not show concern for the quality

of patient care, nor was there a follow-up meeting as had been promised.

93. On July 24, 2009, Dr. Banuelos wrote a confidential letter to Dr. Ihnken regarding

his interactions and behavior with other staff members at SCVMC. He discussed interactions of

three incidents, and discussed JCAHO requirements. In a letter to Dr. Ihnken, documenting a

“Meeting of July 24, 2009" conducted without an agenda, Dr. Banuelos copied the language from

a “Sham Peer Review” Article, the administration’s conspiratorial blueprint to get rid of medical

providers they did not like. Dr. Banuelos falsely accused Dr. Ihnken of “disruptive” and “abusive

behavior”. Dr. Banuelos stated, “your common behavior, as outlined to me from VMC staff, was

raising your voice, pointing fingers in one’s faces, being verbally abusive and delivering verbal

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


orders to staff contrary to VMC Hospital Policy in a counter-productive manner.” He stated it was

their intention, as well as that of “our VMC Hospital Executive Director to investigate and

appropriately address concerns brought to our attention.” This was an act of retaliation designed

to tarnish Dr. Ihnken’s reputation. Dr. Banuelos did not name the parties who made the false

allegations against him, he did not provide documented proof, and would not allow Dr. Ihnken to

ask questions or defend himself against these false allegations.

94. On July 28, 2009, Dr. Ihnken received an email from Mr. Skehan with a cc to Dr.

Banuelos to acknowledge his concerns regarding quality and safety of patient care. As a further act

of retaliation, on August 20, 2009, Dr. Ihnken received an email from Dr. Banuelos re: SCVMC

Policy – Code of Behavior and Management of Disruptive Behavior. He advised Dr. Ihnken that

a copy of this policy would be attached to the meeting of July 24, 2009. He stated, “I trust that you

understand the importance of adhering to the standards that are required. We appreciate your

compliance in this very important matter.” He ccd Dr. Adams and Dr. Goel .

95. On September 02, 2009, Dr. Ihnken responded to an email sent to Dr. Banuelos and

Dr. Adams from his colleague, Dr. Nathanson. Dr. Ihnken agreed with Dr. Nathanson that it

compromised patient care that Dr. Nathanson was not allowed to do a simple Thoracic case, despite

the fact that the previous case was gone from the Operating Room by 1:15pm. Dr. Ihnken stated,

“I find these obstructions to the efforts of our Division to deliver good patient care unacceptable.

We are expected to fulfill the mission of the hospital, but we are not provided with the necessary

tools and resources to do so.” Dr. Ihnken further pointed out these events were not isolated, but

represented a re-occurring and continued pattern of deficiencies. He further pointed out they

continued to occur despite the fact that these issues were being brought up repeatedly, and found it

troubling that they had not being addressed.

96. On September 4, 2009, just two days after Dr. Ihnken’s e-mail, Dr. Moritz sent out

a highly offensive public email, falsely accusing Dr. Ihnken of inefficiency in the Operating Room.

On September 8, 2009, Dr. Nathanson sent a return email to Dr. Moritz to point out that his

allegation was not only offensive, but also riddled with wrong information, patent fabrications and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


outright lies. On September 15, 2009, Dr. Ihnken responded as well, and responded to each incident,

proving each one was false and without merit. This was a pattern, policy, custom and practice by

Hospital Administration to give a false impression of an employee, and to accuse them of being

“disruptive”, the first stages of a planned set-up to get rid of the employee, in this case Dr. Ihnken.

97. On September16, 2009, Dr. Ihnken sent an e-mail to Dr.s Adams, Goel and Banuelos

regarding a significant patient care issue of high infection rate after chest tube placement, which

had been going on for years. The administrators never responded to this issue of patient safety

98. On January 05, 2010, Dr. Ihnken received an email from the Chair of the

Cardiothoracic Surgery at Stanford University Hospital, congratulating him for successfully

performing the second Aortic Stent Grafting at SCVMC, a new and advanced procedure. In a later

meeting, Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, Chief Medical Officer, and not a surgeon, but a Primary Physician

by training, exerted his power by willfully deciding that this procedure was not to be performed at

SCVMC. Dr. Alfonso Banuelos unilaterally made this decision without explanation or obvious

reason, or consultation with the surgeons. The result of Dr. Banuelos’ decision not to allow Dr.

Ihnken to treat patients with Aortic Disease was the untimely and unnecessary death of a patient in

the Emergency Room.

99. On March 18, 2010, Dr. Ihnken and his colleague, Dr. Michael Nathanson, sent an

email to Dr. Banuelos in response to an email Dr. Banuelos had initiated to inform the surgeons that

he would not allow minimally invasive (MI) surgeries to be done in the operating room, and with

a directive to limit off pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. In this public email Dr. Banuelos

questioned Dr. Ihnken’s professional competence and his leadership, progressing to criticism of Dr.

Ihnken’s patient care decisions. Dr. Banuelos then called a meeting with Stanford managing

physicians during which he recommended that Dr. Ihnken be fired, and County Executive Dr.

Jeffrey Smith was ccd on the email.

100. On April 06, 2010, Dr. Nathanson wrote an email to Dr. Gregg Adams, Chair of the

Department of Surgery, after discovering that Dr. Banuelos had spread malicious rumors regarding

the financial performance of Cardiothoracic Surgery. On April 12, 2010, Dr. Ihnken placed a request

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to Dr. Gregg Adams to provide a financial statement to substantiate the claims made by Dr.

Banuelos on April 06, 2010. Sufficient evidence of the financial performance status was never

provided.

101. On May 18, 2010, Dr. Ihnken received an email from Dr. Alfonso Banuelos that he

was scheduled to meet with the Greely Consulting Firm. On May 19, 2010, Dr. Ihnken met with

a representative from Greeley Consulting Firm for one and a half (1 ½) hours. In this meeting with

the Consultant group, Dr. Ihnken provided copies of written evidence pertaining to the lack of

quality care for patients. Dr. Ihnken also pointed out that all surgical services are covered by

in-house Residents, except for the Cardiothoracic Surgeons, a deficiency that creates a severe

compromise to patient care. Dr. Ihnken made numerous requests to change this procedure so that

it would include Cardiothoracic Surgeons and greatly benefit the patients; however, all requests were

ignored by Hospital Administration.

102. On May 27, 2010, Dr. Ihnken made a recommendation that Dr. Banuelos implement

a written policy to address issues in Cardiology with Medical-Legal implications, and this request

was never acted upon.

103. On May 27, 2010, Dr. Michael Nathanson, Cardiothoracic Surgeon, sent a follow-up

email to Dr. Banuelos regarding two incidents that occurred in the Operating Room (OR), which

were based on his sixteen years of experience with problems in preoperative service. Dr. Ihnken

recommended leadership change. The head of preoperative service was Dr. Moritz, one of the

physicians, who was under the protection of Dr. Goel and Dr. Banuelos.

104. On August 28, 2010, Dr. Ihnken wrote to Dr. Adams to express concern about a

progress note written by Dr. Brewster on patient YD: “Surgery later this week.” It had been

established in the past that it was inappropriate for Dr. Brewster to comment on a narrow window

of timing for surgery, especially as he had been fully aware for many years that the resources

provided for Cardiothoracic Surgeons are severely limited, and that this note, in case of a delay,

might have medical-legal implications for the hospital and the surgeon. These matters were never

addressed by Hospital Administration, however, according to their policy, Dr. Ihnken’s concern was

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


labeled: “Disruptive Behavior”.

105. On September 10, 2010, Dr. Ihnken sent an email to Dr. Sherck, Trauma Surgeon in

the Emergency Room, asking him to provide an explanation as to why a patient wasn’t taken to the

Operating Room, a decision that resulted in the death of the patient. Dr. Banuelos had made a

unilateral decision, that neither cases with Hypothermic Circulatory Arrest, nor Aortic Stent Grafting

would be performed at SCVMC. These were the only two procedures which would have potentially

been able to save the patient’s life. These procedures had been done successfully at SCVMC in the

106. past. Per Title 22, in California, cases with Cardio-Pulmonary Bypass require three

surgeons involved in the case, or two surgeons and one Physician Assistant (PA). Dr. Banuelos

made the unilateral decision, that PAs cannot be on-call for Cardiothoracic Surgery. Dr. Gregg

Adams was well aware of Dr. Banuelos’ decisions and the ramifications they held for patient care.

107. On June 08, 2010, Dr. Ihnken sent a lengthy email to Dr. Brewster, with ccs to Dr.

Goel and Dr. Jeffery Smith, the County Executive, to address false accusations made by Dr.

Brewster containing defamation of Dr. Ihnken’s character and professional conduct.

DEFENDANTS’ ACTS OF RETALIATION:

108. In July 2009, as further retaliation, Dr. Banuelos again called Stanford

Administration and reported, based on unsubstantiated allegations, that Dr. Ihnken had violated the

Hospital’s Code of Behavior and Management of Disruptive Behavior policy.

109. In August 2009, Dr. Banuelos circulated a written memorandum about the

unsubstantiated allegations throughout the Hospital leadership. Dr. Banuelos took these actions

before conducting any investigation of the allegations, or obtaining any of the documentation and

procedural steps required by the policy he falsely alleged Dr. Ihnken to have violated. Dr. Banuelos

never interviewed the other doctor in the OR, who flatly and emphatically says the allegations are

false, and never even asked Dr. Ihnken for his account of the alleged incident.

110. In addition to failing to provide even minimal due process, Dr. Banuelos attempted

to prevent Dr. Ihnken from defending himself against the charges. Dr. Banuelos withheld from Dr.

Ihnken the specific claims against him for almost two ( 2) months, and when he held the follow-up

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


meeting, Dr. Banuelos hid the purpose of the meeting, falsely saying the meeting was to cover a

different topic. Dr. Banuelos’ actions prevented Dr. Ihnken from defending himself against the

fabricated charges. Dr. Banuelos failed to ever present one scintilla of evidence verifying his

allegations. The allegations were false, malicious and a further “Sham Peer Review” tactic of

retaliation .

111. Between fall of 2009 to spring of 2010, specifically on 10/30/09, 12/3/09, 2/10/2010,

Dr. Ihnken met three (3) or four ( 4) times with the new County Executive Dr. Jeff Smith, who

informed Dr. Ihnken that he was a lawyer as well as a physician. He also explained that he was

hired by the Board of Supervisors because there were problems with VMC and its leadership.

112. In July 2010, Dr. Jeff Smith admitted to the Chairman of Cardiothoracic Surgery at

Stanford, that Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, Chief Medical Officer, was “retaliating against Dr. Ihnken.”

He confirmed his belief that the real issue was the leadership at SCVMC, affirming his support for

Stanford, the cardiac program and Dr. Ihnken.

113. On August 08, 2010, Dr. Banuelos sent an email to the Chairman of Cardiothoracic

Surgery at Stanford, and ccd Dr. Adams, Dr. Goel, Sylvia Gallegos, Acting Chief Operating Officer,

and Dr. Jeff Smith, the County Executive, stating, "We require a change in our designated

Cardiovascular/Cardiothoracic Surgery at VMC from Kai Ihnken, MD, with new, designated on site

leadership of the program."

114. On August 11, 2010, Dr. Jeff Smith, the County Executive, sent an email to the

Chairman of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Stanford and ccd Dr. Banuelos, Dr. Goel and Sylvia

Gallegos, CEO, regarding Dr. Ihnken. In the email he stated, "After our discussion, I told you that

I would check with Al and others to assess what we should do with Cardiovascular (CV) surgery

at SCVMC. We are very committed to maintain and expand the presence of Stanford

Cardiovascular Surgery at SCVMC; however, it appears to me that we will need to do that without

Kai [Dr. Ihnken].

115. Dr. Jeff Smith ignored and refused to address Dr. Ihnken’s numerous complaints

of substandard patient care and patient safety concerns which could create medical-legal liability.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Instead, he joined the power elite leadership group, Dr. Brewster, Dr. Banuelos and Dr. Goel, and

terminated Dr. Ihnken’s employment contract. This act of retaliation was designed to address the

medical-legal issue through the back door, by removing the surgeon who was advocating for

patients rights, care and safety.

116. From September 2006, up to and including, to date, DEFENDANTS COUNTY and

SCVMC have engaged in an energetic pattern, custom, and practice and policy of harassment and

retaliation against Dr. Ihnken, and other medical care providers, who complain about substandard

patient care and safety. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC carry out their pattern, custom, and

practice policy of retaliation against providers by engaging in conduct such as accusing the medical

providers, including Dr. Ihnken, of being “disruptive” and incompetent. DEFENDANTS COUNTY

and SCVMC also carry out their pattern, custom, practice, and policy of retaliation against

providers by ignoring numerous business communications and requests on behalf of patients and

staff; sending out public shotgun emails, falsely accusing the providers, including Dr. Ihnken, of

being derelict in their employment duties. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC retaliated against

Dr. Ihnken by breaching and terminating Dr. Ihnken’s contract after Dr. Ihnken engaged in

protected whistle blower activities. These protected activities include, but are not limited to, Dr.

Ihnken supplying the Greely Consulting Firm with damaging information in regard to the quality

of patient care. Dr. Ihnken’s activities also included, over the course of four years, pointing out

deficiencies in the quality of patient care, the lack of essential instruments, scheduling and staff. The

denial and dismissal of requests to Hospital Administration to allow him to adequately perform his

duties as Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery, and denials and dismissals of necessary surgeries,

resulting in the deaths of patients at SCVMC.

117. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, engaged in a conspiratorial plan to create a

“Sham Peer Review,” the title of two articles published in The Journal of American Physicians and

Surgeons, Spring of 2007, by Lawrence Huntoon, MD. PHD, Editor-In-Chief.

118. The DEFENDANTS circulated this article amongst themselves and agreed to follow

the process outlined in the article of a Sham Peer Review against Dr. Ihnken and Dr. Singh, and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


other medical providers who complained about patient care and safety and substandard conditions

at SCVMC.

In the publication, the Editor-In-Chief writes:

“Sham Peer Review is a premeditated process that begins long before the actualpeer review hearings and formal proceedings. It begins in the mind of those whoset out to destroy a targeted physician...Sham Peer Review is by nature a group effort involving collaboration betweenunethical hospital administrators and unethical physicians attackers....The process of Sham Peer Review frequently involves a progressive series ofsmall attacks leading up to a final formal proceeding designed to end thetargeted physician’s medical career...”“…Hospitals that employ sham peer review typically use the ambush tactic toplace the targeted physician at severe disadvantage. An administrativesecretary may call the physician’s office and request that the targeted physicianattend an “informal, friendly meeting” in the administrator’s office to discussunspecified “issues”. Although the targeted physician typically asks about thespecific issues or concerns, the hospital administration often refuses to provideany specific details prior to the meeting….”“...The numerator-without-denominator tactic...is most commonly used againstsurgeons. Hospitals that use this tactic typically select cases that are specificallydesigned to highlight complications or negative outcomes...specifically omit thedenominator (how many cases of that type the physician has performed over aperiod of time.)Abuse of the ‘Disruptive Physician’ Label: The definition of the disruptivephysician is highly subjective and subject to manipulation and abuse.”The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Spring of 2007, by LawrenceHuntoon, MD. PHD, Editor-In-Chief

119. DEFENDANTS, and each of them caused harm and slandered Dr. Ihnken by

circulating, broadcasting and publishing false emails, statements and communications that Dr.

Ihnken was an incompetent, bad Cardiothoaracic Surgeon. DEFENDANTS refused repeated

requests and suggestions from Dr. Ihnken that they should be circulating, broadcasting, and

publishing the truth as confirmed in Dr. Adams’ Confidential QI Report, which showed that Dr.

Ihnken’s surgery team performed at a level of Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence not only far above

the level county-wide, and above the level in California State-wide, but also the Confidential QI

Report showed that Dr. Ihnken’s surgery team performed Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence above

the level nation-wide.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BY WALKER

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation under FEHA

By WALKER Against ALL DEFENDANTS120. Ms. Walker incorporates by reference herein the proceeding paragraphs of the

complaint as though set forth here in full.

121. California Government Code § 12940 (h) prohibits "any employer, labor

organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against

any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the

person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part."

122. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, took adverse employment action against Ms.

Walker in violation of California Fair Employment and Housing Act by retaliating against Ms.

Walker for her participation in statutorily protected activity. Ms. Walker's complaint to JCAHO

and her complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), as well as her participation as a witness in

proceedings on behalf of a female physician who filed charges of discrimination and sexual

harassment against DEFENDANTS were all protected activities.

123. DEFENDANTS’ adverse employment action against Ms. Walker as herein alleged

was unprivileged, unlawful, and without business purpose.

124. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' retaliatory conduct as set forth herein,

Ms. Walker has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, significant loss of

reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other employment benefits,

lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, future earnings and benefits, costs of suit,

embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5

By WALKER Against COUNTY

125. Ms. Walker incorporates by reference herein the proceeding paragraphs of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


126. California Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 states: "No health facility shall

discriminate or retaliate, in any manner, against any patient, employee, member of the medical staff,

or any other health care worker of the health facility because that person has done either of the

following: (A) Presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency

responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any

other governmental entity. (B) Has initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or

administrative proceeding related to, the quality of care, services, or conditions at the facility that

is carried out by an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or its

medical staff, or governmental entity. (2) No entity that owns or operates a health facility, or which

owns or operates any other health facility, shall discriminate or retaliate against any person because

that person has taken any actions pursuant to this subdivision."

127. On Feburary19, 2009, Ms. Walker filed a complaint with The Joint Commission of

Accreditation Health Organizational.("JCAHO") . In this complaint, Ms. Walker reported facts

concerning substandard patient care and safety to the Joint Commission on , resulting in the death

of a patient in the Stress Lab.


unsafe patient care and conditions regarding an 80 year old male patient (MH) with a history of

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery who presented to emergency room with chest pain and shortness

of breath.

129. On September 7, 2010 Ms. Walker filed a complaint with SCVMC Customer

Services concerning the quality of care for her sister. On September 9, 2010 and September 10,

2010 she filed an addendum to the complaint. Also, on September10, 2010, she filed a complaint

with Jeff Smith, the County Executive Officer.

130. On September 2010 only weeks after Ms. Walker filed her complaint with SCVMC

Customer Services , Defendants retaliated against Ms. Walker by initiating a false and erroneous

allegation and complaint against her that she violated HIPPA by reviewing her sister’s health

records. Ms. Walker alleges on information and belief that Defendants knew the allegations made

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


against her were false since Ms. Walker had a authorization signed by her sister allowing her access

to the medical records.

131. As a further act of retaliation, Defendants initiated a sham investigation into the

alleged violations but refused to allow Ms. Walker to meaningly participate and failed to recognize

the authorization signed by her sister.

132. On September 28, 2010 - Defendants retaliated against Ms. Walker by sending an

email to Ms. Walker from Anna Hughes, the Compliance & Privacy Officer, requesting a meeting

with Ms Walker regarding a potential HIPAA violation Investigation. In this email, Ms. Walker was

advised to bring her union Representative.

133. On October 5, 2010, Defendants retaliated against Ms. Walker by demanding a

meeting with her and the Compliance Officer regarding a false allegation that she had engaged in

a HIPAA Violation. The Chief Union Steward was present and recorded this meeting. The

Compliance Officer stated the SCVMC was investigating a HIPAA violation complaint against Ms.

Walker, regarding her sister's medical records. The Compliance Officer ignored the written

authorization by Ms. Walker's sister to review the medical records. In further retaliation against

Ms. Walker for complaining about patient care and safety, the Compliance Officer filed an

accusation against Ms. Walker with the State, falsely alleging that Ms. Walker had violated

patients' privacy.

134. From November 2009, up to and including, to date, DEFENDANTS' COUNTY and


Walker by engaging in conduct such as ignoring numerous business communications and requests

on behalf of patients and staff; sending out public shotgun emails, falsely accusing Ms. Walker of

being derelict in her employment duties; sending out public emails disclosing confidential

information which should have only been limited to human resources personnel, thereby invading

Ms. Walker's privacy; by increasing Ms. Walker's workload immediately following her return from

an on the job, stress related leave of absence. Dr. Hollister Brewster, one of Ms. Walkers managers,

stated to another physician words to the effect: "if I could fire Thressa I would...".

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


135. On March 1, 10, As a further act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster sent a public email

stating "Thressa has too many clients and non cardiology related assignments to fulfill her duties to

the Chief of Cardiology. Who are these clients? Should an audit of her time distribution during the

8 hours workday be done? I am taking this to a higher level as well as time wasted on E-mails. Do

some people have portable computers?" These allegations are false, malicious, humiliating, and

matters that should be discussed in the privacy of human resources.

136. On information and belief, Dr. Brewster has publicly stated that if it were left to him

he would not hire any women. Further on information and belief, Dr. Brewster has created a hostile

work environment on the basis of her gender, female, and her union activities. Also, Dr. Brewster

subjected Ms. Walker and other women in the cardiology department to frequent sexually explicit

"jokes" and comments despite objections that this conduct was unwelcome and offensive. Dr.

Brewster further retaliated against Ms. Walker because she engaged in protected activity by

testifying favorably for a female physician who had brought allegations of discrimination and sexual

harassment against Dr. Brewster.

137. DEFENDANTS' COUNTY and SCVMC retaliated against Ms. Walker for engaging

in the protected activity . This adverse employment action was a direct result of Ms. Walker's

protected activity and is retaliation.

138. DEFENDANT's actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial losses

in earnings, significant reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and

other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, future earnings and

benefits, costs of suit, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to

proof.


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation Violation of Civil Rights Law - 42 U.S.C. § 1983

By WALKER Against All Defendants

139. Ms. Walker incorporates by reference herein the proceeding paragraphs of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


140. Defendants actions and failures as alleged above constitute a pattern, practice, and

custom of violations of the Civil Rights Laws of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants,

while acting under color of state authority and law, wrongfully and intentionally discriminated and

retaliated against plaintiff because Ms. Walker exercised her First Amendment rights under the

United States Constitution of Free Speech by making a complaint to a governmental agency

concerning patient care and safety at SCVMC.

141. Defendants' conduct, as set forth above, constitutes violations, under color of law,

of plaintiff's rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to her by the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution of free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Further, Defendants' conduct violated Ms. Walker's Fourteenth Amendment right of Liberty by

retaliating against her and thereby by restricting and curtailing her right to be free of

unconstitutional retaliatory conduct.

142. Defendants' actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial losses in

earnings, significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and

other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of future earnings and

benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount

according to proof.

143. As to DEFENDANT DR. BREWSTER only, the acts of this defendant as alleged

herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and

intent to injure Ms. Walker and to cause her mental anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANT'S

acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional harm to plaintiff and with the

intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil Code §3294,

entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against this defendant only.


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTIONINVASION OF PRIVACY

By WALKER Against All Defendants144. Ms. Walker incorporates by reference herein the proceeding paragraphs of the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


145. From November 2009, up to and including, to date, DEFENDANTS' COUNTY and


Walker by engaging in conduct such ignoring numerous business communications and requests on

behalf of patients and staff; sending out public shotgun emails, falsely accusing Ms. Walker being

derelict in her employment duties; sending out public emails disclosing confidential information

which should have only been limited to human resources personnel, thereby invading Ms. Walker's

privacy; by increasing Ms. Walker's workload immediately following her return from an on the job,

stress related leave of absence. Dr. Hollister Brewster, one of Ms. Walkers managers, stated to

another physician words to the effect: "if I could fire Thressa I would...".

146. On March 1, 10, As a further act of retaliation, Dr. Brewster sent a public email

stating "Thressa has too many clients and non cardiology related assignments to fulfill her duties to

the Chief of Cardiology. Who are these clients? Should an audit of her time distribution during the

8 hours workday be done? I am taking this to a higher level as well as time wasted on E-mails. Do

some people have portable computers?" These allegations are false, malicious, humiliating, and

matters that should be discussed in the privacy human resources.

147. DEFENDANTS' publication of private information as herein alleged concerning Ms.

Walker, the publicity of which any reasonable person in Ms. Walkers position would consider

highly offensive, was conduct which DEFENDANTS knew or should have known was injurious.

DEFENDANTS acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the private information was not of

legitimate public concern or did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public

concern]. DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Ms. Walker to suffer shame,

humiliation, mental and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, other harmful and injurious

effects and non-economic damages.

148. Defendant's actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial losses in

earnings, significant reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other

employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, future earnings and benefits,

costs of suit, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28









FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTIONSLANDER PER SE



151. On September 2010 only weeks after Ms. Walker filed a complaint against

defendants, Defendants retaliated against Ms. Walker by initiating a false and erroneous allegation

and complaint against her that she violated HIPPA by reviewing her sister’s health records. Ms.

Walker alleges on information and belief that Defendants knew the allegations made against her

were false since Ms. Walker had a authorization signed by her sister allowing her access to the

medical records.

152. DEFENDANTS made numerous defamatory statements, slandering Ms. Walker to

individuals who had no right to know of such coincidental, private information concerning Ms.

Walker. The various employees who received these slanderous public emails, which falsely

accused her of dereliction of her employment duties reasonably understood that the statements were

only pertaining to Ms. Walker. Such publicly slanderous statements were slander per se because they

injured Ms. Walker in her profession as a Medical Administrative Assistant. DEFENDANTS failed

to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




154. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5

By WALKER against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC

155. Ms. Walker incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the


156. California Labor Code Section 1102.5 provides: (a) An employer may not make,

adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information

to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe

that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance

with a state or federal rule or regulation. (b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for

disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has

reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or

a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (c) An employer may not

retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation

of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.

157. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, took adverse employment action against Ms.

Walker in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5 by retaliating against Ms. Walker for

her participation in statutorily protected activity. Ms. Walker ‘s protected activity included, but is

not limited to, the following: Plaintiff Walker filed charge of discrimination with the EEOC Claim

on 10/15/2009. Plaintiff Walker received a right to sue letter from the DFEH on 10/21/09. Plaintiff

Walker will amend this complaint when she receives her federal right to sue letter. Plaintiff Walker

filed a tort claim in compliance with the Government code on 03/25/2010. Plaintiff Walker received

rejection letter from Santa Clara County pertaining to her Tort Claim on 04/14/2010.

158. DEFENDANTS' actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial losses

in earnings, significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of future earnings

and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damages in an amount

according to proof.


SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTIONINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS



161. DEFENDANTS engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by retaliating against

Ms. Walker for her participation in a statutorily protected activity, including complaining about

patient care and safety in the exercise of her United States Constitution First and Fourteenth

Amendments rights of Free Speech and Liberty. DEFENDANTS' conduct violates public policy as

such and should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

162. DEFENDANTS' conduct was intentional and caused Ms. Walker to suffer severe

emotional distress.




acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional harm to Ms. Walker and were

a substantial factor in causing harm, damage, and injuries and committed with the intent to injure,

constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to

punitive damages against this defendant only.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below.

//

//

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BY DR. SINGH

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation under FEHA

By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC164. Dr. Singh incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the complaint

as though set forth here in full.

165. California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and specifically, California

Government Code § 12940 (h) prohibits "any employer, labor organization, employment agency,

or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because the person has

opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified,

or assisted in any proceeding under this part."

166. The DEFENDANTS County and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center are employers

under the definition under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act in that

these employers regularly employ more than 15 employees. Dr. Singh has been employed as an

employee by DEFENDANTS since 1998 and was at all relevant times herein an employee of said

DEFENDANTS. Dr. Singh has suffered numerous adverse employment actions and Dr. Singh’s

protected status, gender, was a motivating reason for adverse employment action. Dr. Singh was

harmed, and DEFENDANTS’ adverse employment actions were a substantial factor in causing Dr.

Singh’s injuries, losses, damages and harm.

167. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, took adverse employment action against Dr.

Singh in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by retaliating against Dr.

Singh for her participation in statutorily protected activities. Dr. Singh's protected activities include,

but are not limited to, her complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing

(“DFEH”) and to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 31,

2009, as well as her complaint to the County of Santa Clara Employee Service Agency (“ESA”)

Equal Opportunity Division (“EOD”) on March 25, 2009 and December 18, 2009, as well as the

reports of cases to JCAHO.

168. PLAINTIFF, Dr. Geeta Singh, filed an Administrative "Tort Claim" with the Clerk

of the Board on June 30, 2010, a protected act.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


169. PLAINTIFF received a letter of rejection and a notice of return letter without action

in reference to her "Tort Claim" on July 22, 2010.

170. DEFENDANTS' adverse employment action against Dr. Singh as herein alleged was

unprivileged, unlawful, and without business purpose.

171. As a direct and legal result of DEFENDANTS' retaliatory conduct as set forth herein,

Dr. Singh has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings, significant loss of

reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other employment benefits,

lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, future earnings and benefits, cost of suit,

embarrassment and anguish, all to her economic and non-economic damage in an amount according

to proof.


NINTH CAUSE OF ACTIONRetaliation in Violation of Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5

By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC

172. Dr. Singh incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the complaint





following: (A) Presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency


other governmental entity. (B) Has initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or

administrative proceeding related to, the quality of care, services, or conditions at the facility that

is carried out by an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or its

medical staff, or governmental entity. (2) No entity that owns or operates a health facility, or which

owns or operates any other health facility, shall discriminate or retaliate against any person because

that person has taken any actions pursuant to this subdivision."

174. On February 17, 2009, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker, a Medical Administrative

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



patient care. The case was summarized in a format which identified Dr. Singh as the author. In this

complaint, Dr. Singh provided facts concerning substandard patient care and safety to the Joint

Commission on a case, resulting in the death of a patient in the Stress Lab (AW).

175. On March 5, 2009, Dr. Singh provided Ms. Walker, a Medical Administrative


patient care. The case was summarized in a format which identified Dr. Singh as the author. The

complaint was made to JCAHO, of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions regarding an 80

year old male patient (MH) with a history of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery who presented to the

emergency room with Chest Pain and Shortness of Breath.

176. On May 28, 2009, Dr. Singh filed a complaint with SCVMC Hospital Administration

concerning the quality of care for a pregnant patient who was scheduled for a Transesophageal

Echocardiogram, and was kept without eating in excess of twelve (12) hours.

177. On October 02, 2009, Dr. Singh attended an appointment she requested with Anna

Hughes, Compliance Privacy Officer and reported substandard patient care and manipulation of

Medical Records in the Division of Cardiology.

178. On October 28, 2009, Dr. Singh attended an appointment she requested with Dr. Jeff

Smith, County Executive, and reported substandard patient care in the Division of Cardiology.

179. On 02/17/10, Dr. Singh was a witness for a Workers Compensation claim pertaining

to Ms. Walker, a Medical Administrative Assistant in Cardiology, for work related stress due to a

hostile work environment, against Edna McVey and Dr. Hollister Brewster. Dr. Singh provided

information to David Dindak, with Coast to Coast Data Search. Dr. Singh participated in a

follow-up meeting on February 24, 2010.

180. On February 18, 2010, Dr. Singh met with Thomas Gradowski, a representative from

the Santa Clara County Equal Opportunity Division and provided documentation that a letter she

received from County Council contained false statements concerning patient care, authored by Dr.

Alfonso Banuelos, Dr. Gregor and Dr. Brewster.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


181. On March 19, 2010, Dr. Ihnken made a complaint to Dr. Dolly Goel, the Hospital

Director regarding the care of Patient M.. The Cardiologist involved was Dr. Brewster. The

complaint involved the patient care delivered and the behavior of Dr. Brewster. Dr. Singh’s name

was given to corroborate the findings. In addition, another complaint was made regarding Patient

O, where a note from Dr. Brewster was dated and timed before he discussed the patient with the CT

Surgery Physician Assistant, Randy Mastretti. The note included information from that discussion

which had not, at the time of the note, taken place. Dr. Brewster has made these types of entries in

patient's medical records on other occasions.

182. On April 22, 2010, Dr. Singh was informed by a colleague that confidential

correspondence with Dr. Banuelos pertaining to her was accessible to hospital staff on the hospital

computer. This included a letter from Dr. Banuelos to Equal Opportunity and the letter from her

lawyer to Dr. Banuelos.

183. As further retaliation, Dr. Gregor and Dr. Brewster have attempted repeatedly to

remove Dr. Singh’s clinical responsibilities, including Stress Echo. In May 2010, Dr. Peter Gregor,

exerting self appointment power, advised the Cardiology staff to give Stress Echoes to him to read

rather than to Dr. Singh. Dr. Gregor did not confer with Dr. Singh, the Medical Director of

Echocardiography and the Cardiologist responsible for the Stress Echo program since its inception.

Dr. Singh has been reading Stress Echoes to achieve and maintain certification. The decision made

by Dr. Gregor would negatively and adversely affect Dr. Singh’s certification and would affect her

professional standing.

184. On May 20, 2010 and May 21, 2010, Dr. Singh participated with the Greely

Consulting Firm review of Cardiology. The Greely Consulting Firm was hired by The County

Executive Office. Dr. Singh presented an abundance of evidence concerning the quality of patient

care, including substandard care resulting in deaths.

185. DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC retaliated against Dr. Singh for engaging

in a protected activity. This adverse employment action was a direct result of Dr. Singh’s protected

activity and is therefore retaliation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation Violation of Civil Right-42 U.S.C. § 1983

By SINGH Against All Defendants



187. DEFENDANTS’ actions and failures as alleged constitute a pattern, practice, and

custom of violations of the Civil Rights Laws of the United States, 42 U.S.C § 1983.

DEFENDANTS, while acting under color of state authority and law, wrongfully and intentionally

discriminated and retaliated against Dr. Singh because she exercised her First Amendment right

under the United States Constitution of Free Speech by making a complaint to a government agency


188. DEFENDANTS' conduct, as set forth above, constitutes violations, under color of

law, of Plaintiff's rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to her by the First Amendment of

the United Stated Constitution of free speech and to petition the government for redress of

grievances. Further, DEFENDANTS' conduct violated Dr. Singh’s Fourteenth Amendment right of

Liberty by retaliating against her and thereby by restricting and curtailing her right to be free of

unconstitutional retaliatory conduct.




and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount

according to proof.

190. As to DEFENDANTS Dr. Brewster, Dr. Banuelos, and Dr. Gregor only, the acts of

these DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive,

fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Singh and to cause her mental anguish,

anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS' acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe

emotional harm to Plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


under California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against these

DEFENDANTS only. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below.


ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5

By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC



192. California Labor Code Section 1102.5 provides: (a) An employer may not make,

adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information

to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe

that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance

with a state or federal rule or regulation. (b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for

disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has

reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or

a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (c) An employer may not

retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation

of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.

193. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, took adverse employment action against Dr.

Singh in violation of California Labor Code Section 1102.5 by retaliating against Dr. Singh for her

participation in statutorily protected activity. Dr. Singh's protected activity included, but are not

limited to, her complaints to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) and to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on December 31, 2009, as well as her

complaints to the County of Santa Clara Employee Service Agency (“ESA”) Equal Opportunity

Division (“EOD”) on March 25, 2009 and December 18, 2009, as well as the reports of cases to

JCAHO.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damages in an amount

according to proof.


TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNEQUAL PAY VIOLATION FEDERAL EQUAL ACT AND FEHA,

California Labor Code § 1197.5 By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC



196. United States Federal Law, “The Equal Pay Act of 1963" amended the Fair Labor

Standards Act: 29 U.S. C Section 206. (d) prohibition of sex discrimination in pay and requires equal

pay for equal work: (d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section

shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between

employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than

the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal

work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are

performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a

seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality

of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex:

197. Government Code section 12940(a) provides it is an unlawful employment practice:

“For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical

disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation of any

person, ...or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges

of employment.”

198. California Equal Pay Act - California Labor Code § 1197.5 states: “ (a) No employer

shall pay any individual in the employer's employ at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees

of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working

conditions, except where the payment is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a

system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or a differential based on any

bona fide factor other than sex. (b) Any employer who violates subdivision (a) is liable to the

employee affected in the amount of the wages, and interest thereon, of which the employee is

deprived by reason of the violation, and in an additional equal amount as liquidated damages....”

199. DEFENDANTS are violating Dr. Singh’ rights as a woman by paying her less pay

than her male counterparts. This conduct is a violated under the The Equal Pay Act of 1963 of the

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); it’s a violation of FEHA; and a violation of California Labor

Code § 1197.5. The law prohibits employers from paying unequal wages, based on gender. Men

and women employed in the same establishment, doing substantially equal work must be paid the

same wages. Dr. Singh is a senior cardiologist, with more seniority than similarly situated male

cardiologist at SCVMC in the division of cardiology; however, as a female DEFENDANTS pay her

less wages than the men. On January 29,2009, President Obama acknowledged the importance of

equal pay in our society: “It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair

Pay Act — we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and

each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness” . Under the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,

each pay check which was unequal to similarly situated male physicians starts to run a new statute

of limitations. Consequently, DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC are liable for all of the

sums due for the unequal paychecks from the beginning of this discriminatory practice.

DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC’S conduct of denying Dr. Singh equal pay is an

adverse employment action on the basis of Dr. Singh’s gender, female.

200. DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC and the departments do not give

information to the employees about the salaries of the other employees. Dr. Singh did not know the

salaries. She does not know the salaries for the previous years. On May 24, 2010, Dr. Singh

discovered the unequal pay when the San Jose Mercury News reported on the County Employees

Salaries and announced a database, listing the salaries for 2009. This database shows the salaries of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


all County employees.

201. Four (4) Cardiologists are Non-invasive Cardiologists with similar jobs to Dr. Singh:

(1) Dr Hollister Brewster is the most senior - over 15 years; (2) Dr Geeta Singh is the 2nd most

senior with 12 years and 10 months; (3) Dr Thomas Wentzien is the next most senior - at 12 years

and 4 months; and (4)) Dr Peter Gregor is most junior - at 7 years.

202. The salaries: (1) Dr Hollister Brewster - $367,152; (2) Dr Geeta Singh - $322,421;

(3) Dr Thomas Wentzien - $364,310; and (4) Dr Peter Gregor - $402,911

203. Upon discovering this violation of law, Dr. Singh felt unappreciated, humiliated. She

was nauseous, with a big knot in the bottom of her stomach; she was extremely upset, with a feeling

of betrayal, and became so nervous, shaky and shocked that she was forced to sit down for

composure. Dr. Singh experienced severe mental and emotional distress when she discovered this

blatant gender discrimination, and the fact that she was not treated equally with the other

Cardiologists. She felt that neither she as a person, as a human being, nor her hard work were

valued. She felt that the Administration, the COUNTY and the SCVMC did not care how hard she

worked, how committed she is to her patients, the community, her colleagues and to her staff. The

evidence in the productivity data for 2009 shows that Dr. Singh did the most work. She read most

of the EKGs, Echoes and Holters procedures. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC did not care

about Dr. Singh’s rights, feelings, or her productivity. They looked past her, the invisible doctor.

They based her salary solely on gender--female.

204. DEFENDANTS treated Dr. Singh disparately, differently, discriminatorily in

compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Such discrimination was

motivated by Dr. Singh’s gender, female. Dr. Singh’s gender was a “motivating reason” for

DEFENDANTS’ illegal and unlawful conduct because her gender is one of the reasons that

contributed to the DEFENDANTS’ decision to take certain adverse action, even though other

reasons also may have contributed to DEFENDANTS’ decisions.


THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION-DISPARATE TREATMENT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


VIOLATION TITLE VII AND FEHA, By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC



206. As shown by the facts as alleged herein, DEFENDANTS treated Dr. Singh

disparately, differently, discriminatorily in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment. Such discrimination was motivated by Dr. Singh’s gender, female. Dr. Singh’s gender

was a “motivating reason” for DEFENDANTS illegal and unlawful conduct because her gender

is one of the reasons that contributed to the DEFENDANTS’ decision to take certain adverse action,

even though other reasons also may have contributed to DEFENDANTS’ decisions.




and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to her damage in an amount

according to proof.


FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATION HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

VIOLATION TITLE VII AND FEHA, By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC

And Against Dr. Hollister Brewster,



209. Dr. Singh was subjected to a hostile work environment, based on her protective

status, gender, at her place of employment with DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC and

that Dr. Brewster caused a hostile or abusive work environment directed toward Dr. Singh and

women. That the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive; That a reasonable woman in Dr.

Singh’s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; That

Dr.Singh considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive; That Dr. Brewster, a supervisor,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


engaged in the conduct and DEFENDANTS COUNTY and SCVMC, DR BREWSTER’S

supervisors, knew or should have known of the offensive and hostile conduct and failed to take

immediate and appropriate corrective action.

210. Dr. Hollister Brewster created an intimidating and hostile work environment against

Dr. Singh and women by telling explicit sexual jokes frequently and routinely giving a sexual

connotation to everyday issues. This was a regular part of the work environment in the Division of

Cardiology at Valley Medical center for years, from 2006 up to and including this year of 2010.

211. Dr. Brewster would tell these sexual jokes in front of the staff in Cardiology, in the

Cardiology Office, in the Cardiac CatheterizationLab and other locations in the hospital. One

example: In Urgent Care, Dr Brewster related a “joke” that he treated a patient with an infection in

his genital area. Dr Brewster asked the patient how he got the infection. The patient replied that he

was having sexual relations with a pig. Dr Brewster then asked if the pig was a male or female. Dr

Brewster said the patient became very upset and said it was a female pig because he was not gay.”

Dr Brewster laughed profusely. A second example: There was a ceiling leak in one of the

Cardiologist's offices from a liquid. The Gastroenterology Department occupied the floor above

Cardiology so the Cardiologist was concerned about the nature of the liquid. Dr. Brewster recounted

that he asked the Cardiologist if he had sex with his wife and that he told the Cardiologist that sex

is much dirtier than any liquid leaking from a ceiling. A third example: On March 10,2008 in a

Group Facilitation Meeting with Gloria Dunn and all the Cardiologists, the group was discussing

four (4) personality types and watched a video clip of a dominant personality type. On the video,

the dominant personality was played by a woman. After the video concluded, Dr Brewster quipped:

"I guess that's what you call a bitch". Dr. Gregor agreed with him and said: "I know that type, my

ex-wife". Both Dr. Brewster and Dr. Gregor started laughinguproariously. Gloria Dunn remained

silent. Dr. Singh silently expressed disdain. The meeting ended with Dr Wentzien and Dr Daggubati

not agreeing with Dr. Brewster.

212. Dr. Brewster also made remarks about women that portrayed a negative view. Dr

Brewster would routinely comment on how emotional women were and would make derisive

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


comments about female patients. He stated that if it was up to him he “... would not hire women

because they cause all the problems and they become pregnant." On February 6, 2008, in personal

communication from several male physicians, it is confirmed that Dr. Brewster said many times:

"The problem is the Division is the women". "The women are fighting." "If it were up to me I would

not hire any women".

213. On May 17, 2010 Dr Singh was in the Cardiac Catheterization Lab. Dr. Brewster

was discussing the schedule with Merle (Cath Lab Nurse). During the conversation, Dr Brewster

said again that if it was up to him he would not hire women because they become pregnant and ......

The conversation was witnessed by Mary Herman (Cath Lab tech). This is similar to statements Dr

Brewster has expressed over the years, stereotyping women.

214. Dr. Brewster’s sexually explicit “jokes” and comments were and are unwelcome,

hostile and offensive to any reasonable woman. Dr. Singh ( and other women) expressed her

objection to Dr. Brewster comments by words or conduct, but Dr. Brewster sexually explicit conduct

was continuing, persisting, predicably recurring, and always hostile to women. Whenever Dr. Singh

encountered Dr Brewster making such sexually offensive remarks she would leave the work area

immediately, whenever possible.

215. As to DEFENDANT DR. BREWSTER only, the acts of this DEFENDANT as

alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill

will and intent to injure Dr. Singh and to cause her mental anguish, anxiety, and distress.

DEFENDANT's acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional harm to

plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under California

Civil code §3294.


FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY

Violation of Fourth Amendment U. S. Constitution And Violation of Article 1 of California Constitution

By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC And Against Dr. Hollister Brewster, Dr. Peter Gregor and Dr. Alfonso Banuelos


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



217. DEFENDANTS violated Dr. Singh’s privacy rights, which are stated in the U. S. and

California Constitutions: Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution: “The right of the people to

be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

seized.”

218. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, the DECLARATION OF

RIGHTS, allows: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.

Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting

property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

219. From May 2009, up to and including, to date, DEFENDANTS County and SCVMC

have engaged in an energetic pattern and practice of invading the privacy of Dr. Singh by engaging

in sending out public emails falsely accusing Dr. Singh of being derelict in her employment duties;

sending out public emails disclosing confidential information which should have been limited only

to Administration.

220. On March 06, 2009, as a further act of retaliation, Dr. Gregor sent a public email in

which he stated, "Dr. Singh is openly defiant of authority, and in my opinion does not establish

harmonious working relationships with others working here." In the same public email he stated, "as

for the identity of the anonymous hacker of our heart lab, who sent echocardiograms off to a third

party (JCAHO), I have read Homer, and I cannot be attacked by " no man. " If anonymous has no

identify, anonymous does not need to be handled with kid gloves."

221. On April 22, 2010, Dr. Singh was informed by a colleague that confidential

correspondence with Dr. Banuelos pertaining to her was accessible to hospital staff on the hospital

computer. This included a letter from Dr. Banuelos to Equal Opportunity and the letter from her

lawyer to Dr. Banuelos.

222. DEFENDANTS' publication of private information as herein alleged, concerning Dr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Singh, the publicity of which any reasonable person in Dr. Singh’s position would consider highly

offensive, was conduct which DEFENDANTS knew or should have known was injurious.

DEFENDANTS acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the private information was not of

legitimate public concern or did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public

concern. DEFENDANTS' conduct was a substantial factor in causing Dr. Singh to suffer shame,

humiliation, mental and emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, other harmful and injurious

effects and non-economic damages.

223. DEFENDANTS’ actions have caused and continue to cause plaintiff substantial

losses in earnings, significant reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities

and other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, future earnings and

benefits, costs of suit, embarrassment an anguish, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.

224. As to DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. GREGOR and DR. BANUELOS

only, the acts of these DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable,

oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Singh and to cause her mental

anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk

of severe emotional harm to plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and

malice under California Civil code §3294.

225. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below. SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

SLANDER By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC And Against Dr. Hollister Brewster And Dr. Peter Gregor226. Dr. Singh incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the complaint


227. DEFENDANTS made numerous defamatory statements, slandering Dr. Singh to

individuals who had no right to know of any such coincidental, private information concerning Dr.

Singh. The various employees who received these slanderous public emails, which falsely accused

her of dereliction of her employment duties reasonably understood that the statements were only

pertaining to Dr. Singh. Such publicly slanderous statements were Slander Per Se because they

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


injured Dr. Singh in her profession as a physician. DEFENDANTS failed to use reasonable care to

determine the truth or falsity of the statements.

228. On March 04, 2009, as a further act of retaliation, Dr Peter Gregor, a Cardiologist

in the Division of Cardiology erupted into a violently angry outburst when Dr. Singh asked why

Cardiologists were now doing stress test consents. Dr. Gregor stated, "There has been a policy

change." Dr. Singh acknowledged her unawareness, and Dr. Gregor yelled, "Now you have been

told." This was done on speaker phone, in the presence of a patient and Cardiology and Nuclear

Medicine staff. Dr. Gregor came to the Echo reading room where Dr. Singh was located and

proceeded to erupt in an angry outburst, to yell and scream at Dr. Singh and walk towards her in a

threatening manner, backing her into a corner screaming, "Go to Nuclear Medicine right now and

do the consents." When Dr. Singh, in fear, attempted to explain that she had not been informed, Dr.

Gregor said, "Stop, stop right there."

229. On March 06, 2009, Dr. Gregor sent a public email regarding the incident on March

05, 2009, containing many false statements. In the public email, Dr. Gregor referred to Dr. Singh

as his supervisor. He further stated: "I saw Dr. Singh literally doing nothing,". This is a false and

slanderous statement.

230. On September 22, 2010, as a further act of retaliation, Dr. Gregor sent a public email

in reference to a new worksheet for the Echo Sonographers in which he stated, "Dr. Singh held a

sudden secret meeting in early September, to which no other cardiologist was invited. This is in

defiance of Valley Medical Center (VMC) and ICAEL guidelines. Since that meeting the Echo

Techs are fearful of getting in "big trouble" if they perform Echoes according to 21st century

guidelines." These allegations by DEFENDANT DR. GREGOR are false, malicious, humiliating,

and matters that should be discussed in privacy with Administration.

231. As to DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, and DR. GREGOR only, the acts of these

defendants as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and

done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Singh and to cause her mental anguish, anxiety, and

distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


harm to Plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under

California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against these defendants only.


SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS By SINGH Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC

And Against Dr. Hollister Brewster And Dr. Peter Gregor,233. Dr. Singh incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the complaint



Dr. Singh for her participation in a statutorily protected activity, including complaining about patient

care and safety in the exercise of her United States Constitution First and Fourteenth Amendments

rights of Free Speech and Liberty. DEFENDANTS' conduct violates public policy as such and

should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

235. DEFENDANTS' conduct was intentional and caused Dr. Singh to suffer severe

emotional distress.

236. As to DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER and DR. GREGOR only, the acts of these

defendants as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and

done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Singh and to cause her mental anguish, anxiety, and


harm to Dr. Singh and were a substantial factor in causing harm, damage, and injuries and

committed with the intent to injure, constitution oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil

Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against these DEFENDANTS only.


//

//

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT BY DR. IHNKEN

EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation in Violation of

Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5 By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC

237. Dr. Ihnken incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the





following: (A) Presented a grievance, compliant, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency


other governmental entity. (B) Has initiated, participated, or cooperated at the facility that is carried

out by an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluation the facility or its medical staff,

or governmental entity. (2) No entity that owns or operates a health facility, or which owns or

operates any other health facility, shall discriminate or retaliate against any person because that

person has taken any actions pursuant to this subdivision."

239. DEFENDANT COUNTY AND SCVMC retaliated against Dr. Ihnken by

prematurely terminating his contract nine months before the date of expiration. On July 01, 2009,

the contract between Stanford and SCVMC was extended through June 30, 2011, with Dr. Ihnken

as the primary physician.

240. On May 19, 2010, Dr. Ihnken met with a representative from Greely Consulting

Firm, which was investigating the hospital compliance with regulations, policies and procedures for

maintaining standard of care for patients. Dr. Ihnken met with representatives of the Greely

Consulting Firm for one and a half (1 ½) hours. In this meeting with the Consultant group, Dr.

Ihnken provided copies of written evidence pertaining to the lack of quality care for patients.

241. Three (3) month later, on August 11, 2010, Dr. Jeff Smith, the County Executive,

terminated Dr. Ihnken’s employment contract nine (9) months before the expiration date. The

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


temporal proximity of Dr. Ihnken’s report of substandard patient care to the Greely Consulting Firm

and the adverse employment action taken against him by DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC

is positive proof that DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC retaliated against Dr. Ihnken.

242. Dr. Jeff Smith, a physician who also holds a law degree, admitted to the Chairman

of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Stanford that Dr. Banuelos was “retaliating” against Dr. Ihnken. This

admission not only states the obvious conclusion compelled by the evidence, but it is also binding

on DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC since the admission is made by a managing agent of

DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC .

243. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC violated Health & Safety Code Section

1278.5 by retaliating and discriminating against Dr. Ihnken because he presented a grievances,

complaints, or reports to the Greely Consulting Firm, an entity or agency responsible for accrediting

or evaluating the facility.

244. DEFENDANTS' actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial

losses in earnings, significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional

opportunities and other employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of

future earnings and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to his damage

in an amount according to proof.


NINETEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Retaliation Violation of

Civil Right-42 U.S.C. § 1983 By IHNKEN Against All Defendants



246. DEFENDANTS’ actions and failures as alleged above constitute a policy, pattern,

practice, and custom of violations of the Civil Rights Laws of the United States, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants, while acting under color of state authority and law, wrongfully and intentionally

discriminated and retaliated against Dr. Ihnken because he exercised his First Amendment rights of

Free Speech under the United States Constitution by making a complaint to a governmental agency

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



247. DEFENDANTS' conduct, as set forth above, constitutes violations, under color of

law, of Plaintiff's right, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to him by the First Amendment of the

United States Constitution of free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Further, DEFENDANTS' conduct violated Dr. Ihnken’s Fourteenth Amendment right of Liberty by

retaliating against him and thereby restricting and curtailing his right to be free of unconstitutional

retaliatory conduct. DEFENDANTS' conduct also violated Dr. Ihnken’s Fourth Amendment Right

of Privacy. DEFENDANTS' actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses



and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to his damage in an amount

according to proof.

248. As to DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS , Dr. Hollister Brewster and

DR. DOLLY GOEL, only, the acts of these DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, were intentional,

outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Ihnken

and to cause him mental anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts were done in

conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional harm to plaintiff and with the intent to injure,

constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to

punitive damages against these DEFENDANTS only.


TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD: Civ. Code §1709

By IHNKEN Against All Defendants



250. On July 01, 2009, the contract between Stanford and SCVMC was extended through

June 30, 2011, with Dr. Ihnken as the primary physician and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery and

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


a beneficiary to the contract. Through this act, Defendants promised to continue Dr. Ihken’s

employment.

251. At the time of making said promise, the DEFENDANTS were laying the groundwork

to discredit and terminate Dr. Ihnken. At the time of making said promise DEFENDANTS and their

agents, principals and directors did not intent to perform the promise. This promise was a false

promise; a sham; a farce; a fraud.

252. Dr. Ihnken reasonably relied on the promise made by defendants. DEFENDANT

COUNTY and SCVMC’S promise was important to the transaction because Dr. Ihnken forfeited

other opportunities for his career goals in order to assume the position as Director of Cardiothoracic

Surgery at SCVMC.

253. Dr. Ihnken was harmed because DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC made a false,

fraudulent, promise to honor the contract with Stanford, in which Dr. Ihnken was assigned the

position Director of Cardiothoracic Surgery at SCVMC,

254. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC did not intend to perform this promise when

the administrators and agents who negotiated and approved the contract, including Dr. Brewster and

Dr. Banuelos, made the promise. Dr. Ihnken intended to rely, and did reasonably rely on

DEFENDANTS’ promise.

255. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC did not perform the promise as required under

the contract and did not intend to perform its duties as agreed in the contract. Dr. Brewster’s

comments to Dr. Ihnken in May 2006, two (2) months before the start of the contract that “They are

against Stanford” are evidence of bad faith and a lack of genuine intention to perform the terms of

the promise under the contract.

256. Further evidence of the lack of intent to perform the promise under the contract is

Dr. Brewster’s statement to Dr. Michael Nathanson, within three(3) months of Dr. Ihnken being on

staff as the Director of Cardiothroacic Surgery, that "Kai is a bad surgeon and he needs to go." Dr.

Moritz, Chief of Anesthesia, spoke similarly disparagingly, maliciously and falsely against Dr.

Ihnken, injuring Dr. Ihnken’s excellent reputation as a Cardiothoracic Surgeon.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


257. Additionally, Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, the Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Dolly Goel,

the Medical Director, who were also principals in the negotiations, formation and approval of the

contract, joined the chorus of unfounded anti-Stanford criticism directed at Dr. Ihnken almost from

the inception of the contract. After Dr. Ihnken completed one year as the Director of Cardiothroacic

Surgery, Dr. Banuelos ordered an audit of all the surgery cases performed under Dr. Ihnken’s

direction, starting from almost the first date, July 13, 2006, Dr. Ihnken’s first time in the SCVMC

Operating Room. The date of the “Confidential QI Report” ordered by Dr. Banuelos was from July

13, 2006 through October 2, 2007. This is hardly a coincidence. This is evidence of a noisy

conspiracy agreed to by the leadership of SCVMC to undermine the success of Dr. Ihnken and

ultimately the Stanford Cardiothoracie Surgery Program.

258. Undoubtedly to the shock and chagrin of the leadership team–Dr. Brewster, Dr.

Banuelos, Dr. Dolly Goel– who were seeking to carry out a Sham Peer review, the result of the

Confidential QI Report showed that Dr. Ihnken’s surgery team performed at a level of

Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence not only far above the level county-wide, and the level in

California State-wide, but also the Confidential QI Report showed that Dr. Ihnken’s surgery team

performed Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence above the level nation-wide.

259. Dr. Ihnken’s reliance on DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC’s promise was a

substantial factor in causing his injuries, damages and harm. DEFENDANTS' actions have caused

and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses in earnings, significant loss of reputation and

professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other employment benefits, lost wages,

attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of future earnings and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation,

embarrassment and anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proof.

260. As to DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS , Dr. HOLLISTER

BREWSTER and DR. DOLLY GOEL, only, the acts of these DEFENDANTS as alleged herein,

were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent

to injure Dr. Ihnken and to cause him mental anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts

were done in conscious disregard of the risk of severe emotional harm to Dr. Ihnken and with the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against these DEFENDANTS only.

261. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below

TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT

By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS, Dr. HOLLISTER BREWSTER and DR. DOLLY GOEL



263. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC entered into a CONTRACT with Stanford

University School of Medicine and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, naming Dr. Kai Ihnken as the

Chief of Cardiothroacic Surgery at DEFENDANT COUNTY’S SCVMC. Dr. Ihnken was the

beneficiary of this CONTRACT as his income was paid by Stanford from the funds received from


264. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS AND DR. GOEL all knew

of the contract and participated at some level with the initiation of the contract.

265. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS AND DR. GOEL intended to,

and did, induce and cause the DEFENDANT COUNTY to breach the contract so as to harm Dr.

Ihnken.

266. On March 18, 2010, Dr. Ihnken and his colleague, Dr. Michael Nathanson, sent an

email to Dr. Banuelos in response to an email Dr. Banuelos had initiated to inform the surgeons that

he would not allow MI surgeries to be done in the operating room, and with a directive to limit off

pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.

267. In this public email Dr. Banuelos questioned Dr. Ihnken’s professional competence

and his leadership, progressing to criticism of Dr. Ihnken’s patient care decisions. Dr. Banuelos

then called a meeting with Stanford managing physicians during which he recommended that Dr.

Ihnken be fired, and County Executive Dr. Jeffrey Smith was ccd on the email. As early as

September 2007, Dr. Banuelos asked Stanford administrators to fire Dr. Ihnken. Allegations proved

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


completely false in the audit report on Oct. 4, 2007 by Dr. Adams, of all of Dr. Ihnken’s cases. In

a meeting around June 2010, Medical Director Dolly Goel stated to a Stanford Administor that Dr.

Ihnken should be fired. Dr. Brewster spoke to Dr. Michael Nathanson, and stated, "Kai is a bad

surgeon and he needs to go."

268. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS AND DR. GOEL’S conduct

caused DEFENDANT COUNTY to breach the contract with Stanford.

269. DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT of inducing breach of the contract with Stanford was

a substantial factor in causing his injuries, damages and harm. DEFENDANTS' actions have caused

and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses in earnings, significant loss of reputation and

professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other employment benefits, lost wages,

attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of future earnings and benefits, cost of suit, humiliation,

embarrassment and anguish, all to his damage in an amount according to proof.

270. As to DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL only,

the acts of these DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable,

oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Ihnken and to cause him

mental anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts were done in conscious disregard of

the risk of severe emotional harm to plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression,

fraud, and malice under California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to damages against these

DEFENDANTS only.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below

TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION TORTIOUS INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS,

Dr. HOLLISTER BREWSTER and DR. DOLLY GOEL



272. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS AND DR. GOEL all knew

of the contract and participated at some level with the initiation of the contract.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


273. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS AND DR. GOEL intentionally

274. interfered with the contract between DEFENDANT COUNTY and Stanford

University Medical Hospital and Clinic, and caused DEFENDANT COUNTY to breach the contract

so as to harm Dr. Ihnken.


of interference with the contractual relations between DEFENDANT COUNTY and Stanford

University Medical Hospital and Clinic DEFENDANT’S was a substantial factor in causing his

injuries, damages and harm.












DEFENDANTS only.


TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION TORTIOUS INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANT DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS ,




279. Dr. Ihnken and DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC were in an economic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


relationship that did and would have in the future resulted in an economic benefit to Dr. Ihnken.

280. DEFENDANT COUNTY and SCVMC entered into a CONTRACT with Stanford

University School of Medicine and Stanford Hospital and Clinics, naming Dr. Kai Ihnken as the

Chief of Cardiothroacic Surgery at DEFENDANT COUNTY’S SCVMC. Dr. Ihnken was the

beneficiary of this CONTRACT as his income was paid by Stanford from the funds received from


281. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL knew of the

relationship and participated at some level with the initiation of this relationship.

282. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL intended to,

and did, disrupt the relationship.

283. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL engaged in

wrongful conduct of a Sham Peer Review, including misrepresentations of Dr. Ihnken’s skill and

service to his patients. DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL

accused Dr. Ihnken of being a bad surgeon and made, or participated in statements pertaining to Dr.

Ihnken such as, "Kai is a bad surgeon and he needs to go."

284. The employment and economic relationship were disrupted. On August 11, 2010,

Dr. Jeff Smith, the County Executive terminated Dr. Ihnken’s employment contract.


of interference with the contractual relations between DEFENDANT COUNTY and Stanford

University Medical Hospital and Clinic was a substantial factor in causing Dr. Ihnken’s injuries,

damages and harm.







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28







DEFENDANTS only.

288. Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below.

TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY

Violation of Fourth Amendment of U. S. Constitution And Violation of Article 1 of California Constitution

By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC DEFENDANT DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS,




290. DEFENDANTS violated Dr.Ihnken’s privacy rights, which are stated in the U. S. and

California Constitutions: Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution: “The right of the people to

be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be

seized.”

291. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, the DECLARATION OF

RIGHTS, allows: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights.

Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting

property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

292. Dr. Ihnken’s Administrative Assistant, Tracie Zarubi, pointed out to him that his

personal private information was visible to anyone who logged into the county computer system on

the “S”-drive. Dr. Ihnken checked and confirmed that his personal information, for example, the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


letter from his attorney to Dr. Banuelos, was open for everybody to see. In total there were

thousands of private documents, organized in many, many folders, on display. They included offer

letters to physicians and other private documents dating back many years. They were all linked from

Dr. Banuelos’s office.

293. In August 2009, Dr. Banuelos circulated a written memorandum about the

unsubstantiated allegations of Dr. Ihnken’s “Disruptive Behavior” throughout the Hospital

leadership. Dr. Banuelos took these actions before conducting any investigation of the allegations,

or obtaining any of the documentation and procedural steps required by the policy he falsely alleged

to have been violated. Dr. Banuelos never interviewed the other doctor in the OR, who flatly and

emphatically said the allegations were false, and never even asked Dr. Ihnken for his account of the

alleged incident. These were matters solely for the human resources administrators, not for the

Hospital Leadership.












DEFENDANTS only.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment as more fully set forth below

TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS, Dr. HOLLISTER BREWSTER and DR. DOLLY GOEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





Dr. Ihnken for his participation in a statutorily protected activity, including complaining about

patient care and safety in the exercise of the United States Constitution First, Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendments rights of Free Speech, Privacy and Liberty. DEFENDANTS' conduct violates public

policy as such and should not be tolerated in a civilized society.

298. DEFENDANTS' conduct was intentional and caused Dr. Ihnken to suffer severe

emotional distress.



oppressive, fraudulent, and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Ihnken and to cause him mental

anguish, anxiety, and distress. DEFENDANTS’ acts were done in conscious disregard of the risk

of severe emotional harm to Dr. Ihnken and were a substantial factor in causing harm, damage, and

injuries and committed with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under

California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages against these DEFENDANTS

only.











1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



DEFENDANTS only.


TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION SLANDER

Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC DEFENDANTS DR. ALFONSO BANUELOS ,

Dr. HOLLISTER BREWSTER and DR. DOLLY GOELDr. Ihnken incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of the complaint as though

set forth here in full.

Despite the known superb patient outcomes and the fact that Dr. Ihnken doubled the caseload, Dr.

Brewster continued to slander Dr. Ihnken to others by stating, “Kai is a bad surgeon”. Dr. Brewster’s

statements included: “Kai is a bad surgeon with bad outcomes”, “we are forced to perform multi-

vessel stenting because ct-surgery does not want to operate”, “CABG is not a good option in this

hospital b/o bad outcomes”, “there are poor results and delay in treatment”. He often made these

remarks in front of the cath lab staff in the area were routinely company representatives who work

in the greater bay area and beyond, as well as nurses who work in other hospitals, were present. The

professionally damaging remarks were being distributed outside SCVMC. One of the non-SCVMC

cardiologists, (Dr. Mehrdad Reza), who works in several hospitals in the community, called Dr.

Ihnken and informed him that Dr. Brewster had just then personally told him these remarks. Dr.

Reza told Dr. Ihnken that he was very surprised about these remarks, as he has known Dr. Ihnken

for many years first hand, from working together at Stanford and at Regional Medical Center, and

he knows about Dr. Ihnken’s timely, high quality care with very good outcomes.

DEFENDANTS' actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses in earnings,

significant loss of reputation and professional injury, loss of promotional opportunities and other

employment benefits, lost wages, attorneys' fees, medical expenses, loss of future earnings and

benefits, cost of suit, humiliation, embarrassment and anguish, all to his damage in an amount

according to proof.

As to DEFENDANTS DR. BREWSTER, DR. BANUELOS and DR. GOEL only, the acts of these

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


DEFENDANTS as alleged herein, were intentional, outrageous, despicable, oppressive, fraudulent,

and done with ill will and intent to injure Dr. Ihnken and to cause him mental anguish, anxiety, and


harm to plaintiff and with the intent to injure, constituting oppression, fraud, and malice under

California Civil Code §3294, entitling Plaintiff to damages against these DEFENDANTS only.


TWENTY-SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF

GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING By IHNKEN Against DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC



305. On July 1, 2006, The Plaintiff, Dr. Kai Ihnken, was contracted by DEFENDANT

COUNTY at Defendant Santa Clara Valley Medical Center as the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery.

Dr. Ihnken held this position since July, 2006, when Stanford entered into a contractual agreement

with Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC). On July 01, 2009, the contract between

Stanford and SCVMC was extended through June 30, 2011, with Dr. Ihnken as the primary

physician and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery and a beneficiary to the contract.

306. Dr. Ihnken substantially performed his job duties. In fact, Dr. Ihnken’s surgery team

performed at a level of Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence not only far above the level county-wide,

and the level in California State-wide, but also the Confidential QI Report showed that Dr. Ihnken’s

surgery team performed Cardiothoracic Surgical excellence above the level nation-wide.

307. Dr. Jeff Smith knew Dr. Ihnken had reported complaints regarding patient care and

safety to him, both in person on at least two or more occasions, and in written email

communications. Dr. Smith also knew that Dr. Banuelos was retaliating against Dr. Ihnken in

efforts to prevent Dr. Ihnken from exposing the severe dangerous nature and pervasive extent of the

risk to patients by the lack of proper instruments, scheduling, and trained staff.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


308. In July 2010, Dr. Jeff Smith stated to the Chairman of Cardiothoracic Surgery at

Stanford that Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, Chief Medical Officer, was “retaliating against Dr. Ihnken.”

He confirmed his belief about what the real issues were, as well as his support for Stanford, the

cardiac program and Dr. Ihnken.

309. During all relevant times to the acts and omissions as alleged herein, Dr. Jeff Smith

knew “..the

310. public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the

medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient

care and

311. conditions.”

312. In spite of Dr. Jeff Smith’s admission of improper and illegal conduct, which he

knows to be in violation of public policy, on August 11, 2010, Dr. Jeff Smith, the County Executive

terminated Dr. Ihnken’s employment contract, preventing Dr. Ihnken from receiving the benefits he

was entitled to receive under the contract.

313. DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC’S conduct was a failure to act fairly and

in good faith.

314. Both parties, Dr. Ihnken and DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC, to an

employment relationship have a duty not to do anything that prevents the other party from receiving

the benefits of their agreement. Good faith means honesty of purpose without any intention to

mislead or to take unfair advantage of another. Good faith means being faithful to one’s duty or

obligation.

315. DEFENDANTS COUNTY AND SCVMC, acting through their Managing Agent,

Dr. Jeff Smith, breached the legal imposed covenant of good faith and fair dealing.





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount according to proof;

2. For special damages in an amount according to proof;

3. For prejudgment interest in an amount according to proof;

4. For reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit therein;

5. For punitive damages against Dr. Alfonso Banuelos, Dr. Hollister Brewster, Dr. Peter Gregor, and

Dr. Dolly Goel only;

6. For statutory penalties and any other statutory relief;

7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

8. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

DATED: October 22, 2010

LAW OFFICES OF BONNER AND BONNER

By:___________________________ CHARLES A. BONNER ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DATED: October 22, 2010

LAW OFFICES OF BONNER AND BONNER

By:___________________________ CHARLES A. BONNER ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Documents

CHARLES A. BONNER, ESQ. SB# 85413 A. CABRAL BONNER, …4. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to th e laws of the State of California, California Health and Safety Code §1278.5,