Fired Hopkins doctor seeks $24M

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

exPCM

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
919
Reaction score
8
A former surgical resident is suing the Johns Hopkins Hospital for $24 million, alleging he was unlawfully fired and then defamed after he accused officials of trying to cover up problems with the residency program.

Dr. Oscar K. Serrano was informed of his termination in April, days after a national accrediting agency came to the hospital to investigate an anonymous complaint that Serrano's superiors erroneously believed he wrote, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

Serrano's superiors told their colleagues and other hospitals Serrano was let go because of mental health problems, a charge denied in Serrano's lawsuit and by his lawyer.

"Even if we go to trial and win, there are always going to be people as a result of this think he is mentally ill, and there is zero basis for that," said Andrew D. Levy of Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP in Baltimore.

Hopkins spokesman David March wrote in an e-mail that hospital officials had not seen the complaint and could not comment.

"However, we believe our interactions with Dr. Serrano were appropriate," March wrote.

Unfiltered survey

Serrano is also suing Dr. Pamela A. Lipsett, director of the general surgery residency program, and Dr. Julie Ann Freischlag, chief of surgery, among other individuals.

He alleges that in spring 2008, Lipsett and the administrative chief resident (who is not a defendant) attempted to coach surgical residents as they responded to a survey from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

The survey is designed to gather unfiltered information from residents to ensure compliance with ACGME standards on working conditions and practical experience.

"Any negative feedback from ACGME generally requires a program to reform some aspect of the program and reflects badly on the individuals in charge of the program, such as Dr. Lipsett and Dr. Freischlag," the lawsuit states.

Serrano, who had been elected to a leadership position on a resident committee by his peers, objected to "what appeared to be the administration's effort to cover up the existing problems within the residency program," the lawsuit states.

There were at least five problems within the surgical residency program at the time of the ACGME survey, including residents working more than the maximum number of weekly hours allowed, fearing retaliation for speaking up, and not being allowed to handle a sufficient number of surgical procedures, the lawsuit states.

The anonymous resident complaint prompted a visit to Hopkins by ACGME officials earlier this year. The accrediting agency recently informed the hospital its surgery residency program has been reaccredited, March wrote.

Hopkins 24/7

Serrano, 30, was in the third year of his eight-year joint general surgery residency and Ph.D. program at Hopkins when he was fired, Levy said.

Serrano received "excellent" evaluations during his two years of clinical residency and was the only first-year resident asked to appear on "Hopkins 24/7," an ABC News documentary about the hospital, the lawsuit states. During his second year, Serrano also was featured in a hospital-wide United Way campaign for the surgery department, again the only resident asked to appear, the lawsuit states.

After Lipsett and Freischlag fired Serrano on April 10 for performance reasons, Freischlag announced at a faculty meeting that Serrano was "undergoing counseling and was mentally ill," when in fact he was undergoing counseling only at Lipsett's insistence and his evaluators found no mental disorder, the complaint says.

Serrano, whose family emigrated from Mexico when he was in elementary school, was "heavily recruited" by surgical residency programs upon graduating from the Stanford University School of Medicine in 2006, according to the lawsuit. He chose Hopkins because it promised him five years of clinical training and several years of research of his choosing, according to the lawsuit.

Serrano wanted to get a Ph.D. in immunology while working under a researcher investigating pancreatic cancer, one of his primary medical interests, the complaint says.

Serrano accepted the pancreatic cancer research position during his second year, but the offer was rescinded after Lipsett told the primary researcher about Serrano's alleged mental health problems, he alleges.

News of Serrano's alleged mental health problems subsequently cost Serrano other potential research positions as well as a job moonlighting at another local hospital, the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks more than $10 million in compensatory damages and $13 million in punitive damages.

Levy said Serrano is working part-time at another local hospital.

"He's trying to figure out what he wants to do next year," Levy said. "He needs to get out of surgery and see if he can begin things again in another department."
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?category=2&page=1&id=12257&type=UTTM

Comment: I am not at Hopkins and don't know any more about this than is published in the article.

Residency is an interesting situation - it's a holdover from the guild system. On the one hand, you typically only need a 1 year internship to be eligible to sit for Step 3 which will provide you with credentials for permanent licensure as a physician. This mints "general practitioners" - the norm in the old, old days. However these days, from what I have seen, that often doesn't get you insurance credentials and therefore it is difficult to find work if you are not "BC/BE".

It seems to me that there are some wannabe Napoleonistic dictators who are residency program directors and who enjoy hazing and intimidating new docs and recent grads. IMHO some have gotten away with it for years. However I have never met Dr. Serrano or been to Hopkins so I cannot speak from experience about what the truth is there.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
A former surgical resident is suing the Johns Hopkins Hospital for $24 million, alleging he was unlawfully fired and then defamed after he accused officials of trying to cover up problems with the residency program.

Dr. Oscar K. Serrano was informed of his termination in April, days after a national accrediting agency came to the hospital to investigate an anonymous complaint that Serrano’s superiors erroneously believed he wrote, according to the complaint filed Tuesday in Baltimore City Circuit Court.

Serrano’s superiors told their colleagues and other hospitals Serrano was let go because of mental health problems, a charge denied in Serrano’s lawsuit and by his lawyer.

“Even if we go to trial and win, there are always going to be people as a result of this think he is mentally ill, and there is zero basis for that,” said Andrew D. Levy of Brown, Goldstein & Levy LLP in Baltimore.

Hopkins spokesman David March wrote in an e-mail that hospital officials had not seen the complaint and could not comment.

“However, we believe our interactions with Dr. Serrano were appropriate,” March wrote.

Unfiltered survey

Serrano is also suing Dr. Pamela A. Lipsett, director of the general surgery residency program, and Dr. Julie Ann Freischlag, chief of surgery, among other individuals.

He alleges that in spring 2008, Lipsett and the administrative chief resident (who is not a defendant) attempted to coach surgical residents as they responded to a survey from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

The survey is designed to gather unfiltered information from residents to ensure compliance with ACGME standards on working conditions and practical experience.

“Any negative feedback from ACGME generally requires a program to reform some aspect of the program and reflects badly on the individuals in charge of the program, such as Dr. Lipsett and Dr. Freischlag,” the lawsuit states.

Serrano, who had been elected to a leadership position on a resident committee by his peers, objected to “what appeared to be the administration’s effort to cover up the existing problems within the residency program,” the lawsuit states.

There were at least five problems within the surgical residency program at the time of the ACGME survey, including residents working more than the maximum number of weekly hours allowed, fearing retaliation for speaking up, and not being allowed to handle a sufficient number of surgical procedures, the lawsuit states.

The anonymous resident complaint prompted a visit to Hopkins by ACGME officials earlier this year. The accrediting agency recently informed the hospital its surgery residency program has been reaccredited, March wrote.

Hopkins 24/7

Serrano, 30, was in the third year of his eight-year joint general surgery residency and Ph.D. program at Hopkins when he was fired, Levy said.

Serrano received “excellent” evaluations during his two years of clinical residency and was the only first-year resident asked to appear on “Hopkins 24/7,” an ABC News documentary about the hospital, the lawsuit states. During his second year, Serrano also was featured in a hospital-wide United Way campaign for the surgery department, again the only resident asked to appear, the lawsuit states.

After Lipsett and Freischlag fired Serrano on April 10 for performance reasons, Freischlag announced at a faculty meeting that Serrano was “undergoing counseling and was mentally ill,” when in fact he was undergoing counseling only at Lipsett’s insistence and his evaluators found no mental disorder, the complaint says.

Serrano, whose family emigrated from Mexico when he was in elementary school, was “heavily recruited” by surgical residency programs upon graduating from the Stanford University School of Medicine in 2006, according to the lawsuit. He chose Hopkins because it promised him five years of clinical training and several years of research of his choosing, according to the lawsuit.

Serrano wanted to get a Ph.D. in immunology while working under a researcher investigating pancreatic cancer, one of his primary medical interests, the complaint says.

Serrano accepted the pancreatic cancer research position during his second year, but the offer was rescinded after Lipsett told the primary researcher about Serrano’s alleged mental health problems, he alleges.

News of Serrano’s alleged mental health problems subsequently cost Serrano other potential research positions as well as a job moonlighting at another local hospital, the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks more than $10 million in compensatory damages and $13 million in punitive damages.

Levy said Serrano is working part-time at another local hospital.

“He’s trying to figure out what he wants to do next year,” Levy said. “He needs to get out of surgery and see if he can begin things again in another department.”
http://www.mddailyrecord.com/article.cfm?category=2&page=1&id=12257&type=UTTM

Comment: I am not at Hopkins and don't know any more about this than is published in the article.

Residency is an interesting situation - it's a holdover from the guild system. On the one hand, you typically only need a 1 year internship to be eligible to sit for Step 3 which will provide you with credentials for permanent licensure as a physician. This mints "general practitioners" - the norm in the old, old days. However these days, from what I have seen, that often doesn't get you insurance credentials and therefore it is difficult to find work if you are not "BC/BE".

It seems to me that there are some wannabe Napoleonistic dictators who are residency program directors and who enjoy hazing and intimidating new docs and recent grads. IMHO some have gotten away with it for years. However I have never met Dr. Serrano or been to Hopkins so I cannot speak from experience about what the truth is there.

I hope he rips those hags and Hopkins surgery a collective new one. Again with the armchair psychiatry! These people missed their calling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hmm, I hadn't heard of this situation. That's terrible, I would hope they have some concrete, solid reason if they're gonna kick someone out for mental illness. I'm not gonna take too much from this particular article, though, its obviously a plant from Serrano's lawyer, look at all the positive things they said about him for no particular reason:

Serrano, who had been elected to a leadership position on a resident committee by his peers...Serrano received “excellent” evaluations during his two years of clinical residency and was the only first-year resident asked to appear on “Hopkins 24/7,” ... During his second year, Serrano also was featured in a hospital-wide United Way campaign for the surgery department...was “heavily recruited” by surgical residency programs upon graduating.
 
I wonder if we're starting to see a chain reaction of residents suing their programs, starting with the VCU lawsuit. There's no doubt in my mind residents at almost all programs work more than the max hours allowed on a given rotation, and if there's any sense of retaliation by the program residents may be more inclined to sue now.
 
Amazing! Two multimillion dollar lawsuits just in the last week. This is why online forums like this are so great and that I have kept open my blog. In the past, this story could easily have gotten swept under the rug but not anymore. For every person that opens this thread or happens onto my blog, another two or three will hear about this case via word of mouth. Unfortunately, it appears that in America the only way to affect change is by hitting one in the pocketbook. I hope Hopkins pays dearly for this. And by the way, isn't this the same program where a former surgery resident got booted for reporting work violation hours? If the timeframe to sue has not lapsed, this former resident is looking at a potential goldmine. Plus, I would just love to see this program get whacked with back to back lawsuits. Furthermore, I also recall a former female surgery resident of theirs on reality tv a little way back quit the program due to the horrendous stress she had to endure. I have no idea what became of her. So, I think we have clearly established that this program is more than worthy of being added to that "LIST" of programs that chew up and spit out their residents.
 
Amazing! Two multimillion dollar lawsuits just in the last week. This is why online forums like this are so great and that I have kept open my blog. In the past, this story could easily have gotten swept under the rug but not anymore. For every person that opens this thread or happens onto my blog, another two or three will hear about this case via word of mouth. Unfortunately, it appears that in America the only way to affect change is by hitting one in the pocketbook. I hope Hopkins pays dearly for this. And by the way, isn't this the same program where a former surgery resident got booted for reporting work violation hours? If the timeframe to sue has not lapsed, this former resident is looking at a potential goldmine. Plus, I would just love to see this program get whacked with back to back lawsuits. Furthermore, I also recall a former female surgery resident of theirs on reality tv a little way back quit the program due to the horrendous stress she had to endure. I have no idea what became of her. So, I think we have clearly established that this program is more than worthy of being added to that "LIST" of programs that chew up and spit out their residents.

I believe it was an EM resident who complained about his IM rotation work hours violation and was hounded and harassed into fleeing. WS knows more about it.
 
I believe it was an EM resident who complained about his IM rotation work hours violation and was hounded and harassed into fleeing. WS knows more about it.

Mercapto is right...it was an off-service EM resident, Dr. Troy Madsen, on an IM rotation. Former SDN writer, as well.

Interesting story, thanks ExPCM. I will be intruiged to see what happens, although the best quote is from the hospital suits: "we haven't seen the complaint but we're sure we did everything right". :D
 
It's about time residents fight back. I too feel exploited quite a number of times. Sometimes I get scolded at and I just apologize (even if it was not my fault) just because it was so much easier. One senior of mine told me, "Never again apologize for something you know you are not at fault." And I remember that.
 
Mercapto is right...it was an off-service EM resident, Dr. Troy Madsen, on an IM rotation. Former SDN writer, as well.

Interesting story, thanks ExPCM. I will be intruiged to see what happens, although the best quote is from the hospital suits: "we haven't seen the complaint but we're sure we did everything right". :D

Thanks for the clarification. If Troy Madsen is in fact an SDN'er, someone should definitely PM him a link to this thread. Or PM me his screen name and I will gladly send it. I am sure he would be interested in the current changing climate. Perhaps we could get a referral bonus for pointing this out that we could donate to the CIR :smuggrin:. Maybe a couple years ago it was ok to be kicked out in the rain to the curb but the tide seems to be turning. Another suit would drive the message home. Especially after exuding further arrogance with their hospital's comment on the suit, I would love to see their institution get hit with another.
 
Thanks for the clarification. If Troy Madsen is in fact an SDN'er, someone should definitely PM him a link to this thread. Or PM me his screen name and I will gladly send it. I am sure he would be interested in the current changing climate. Perhaps we could get a referral bonus for pointing this out that we could donate to the CIR :smuggrin:. Maybe a couple years ago it was ok to be kicked out in the rain to the curb but the tide seems to be turning. Another suit would drive the message home. Especially after exuding further arrogance with their hospital's comment on the suit, I would love to see their institution get hit with another.

I do not know if Troy is an active member anymore or not. He was one of the original writers of the SDN Student Diaries.

But here is a link to his faculty web page with email at U of U:
http://www.utahhealthsciences.net/pageview.aspx?id=16986
 
The sickest thing is that so many in medicine are going to defend the residency program.
 
Moral of the story:

It's all about drawing the line EARLY ON.

If someone asks or demands something of you that is unfair or unjust, you REFUSE immediately. Apologizing or conceding is asking for trouble later, when after you have bent over backwards for those bullies multiple times you gain the confidence to stand up - only by then those a-holes are used to you being a doormat, and know that being a doormat is your natural function, so they'll beat you back down to your place.

Assert your dominance ASAP.

My guess is that Dr.Serrano did not draw the line at his program. He worked like a slave, thinking that this would impress his superiors. He was then given more work because he was "the slave". After he got fed up and reported his program, said program retaliated because slaves are not expected to stand up for themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Depends on the contract/union rules. I was at a HHC hospital for most of my med school rotations and the residents there were all part of CIR. Their contract allowed neither work stoppage/strike, nor honoring other picket lines.

So when the nurses at that hospital went on strike, the residents were not required to honor the picket line. As a member of CWA (the national union that represented the grad students at the university) I would have been required to honor the picket line (if I wasn't off-site at the time).

That all said, just because residents aren't "allowed" to strike, doesn't mean they can't.
 
That's too bad.

Now Dr. Serrano has become a cautionary tale for many residents.
 
After Lipsett and Freischlag fired Serrano on April 10 for performance reasons, Freischlag announced at a faculty meeting that Serrano was "undergoing counseling and was mentally ill," when in fact he was undergoing counseling only at Lipsett's insistence and his evaluators found no mental disorder, the complaint says.
Sounds typical. I've heard about this so many times- it's like standard prep for pre-firing residents. Pathetic system. I hope the he wins the lawsuit, totally rooting for him:thumbup:
 
A great example of disciplinary psychiatry. I have seen it used first hand. You're put into a "damn if you do, damn if you don't" position. You go along with their recommendation to go see a psychiatrist of their picking because you want to appear cooperative, but then they use the biased report to destroy you.

Residents have already sacrificed so much. They lost their 20's and 30's slaving away in medical school and residency. They're deep in debt that only a physician salary could possibly pay off. Physicians are already screwed by the system and the litigious public; we shouldn't have to worry about if our very careers will end at the whim of some tyrannical PD. Every resident needs to fight tooth and nail when they're put into this position.
 
I know program directors and superiors are typically the villains in residency programs but let's keep in mind that none of us actually attended this particular program (or even at the same time as Dr. Serrano). There are always many sides to every story, we've read one. Let's hold off extraneous, unrelated, and personal (yet unspecific to this case) knowledge/experience before immediately siding with the one account we've read. :cool:
 
Serrano, who had been elected to a leadership position on a resident committee by his peers, objected to "what appeared to be the administration's effort to cover up the existing problems within the residency program," the lawsuit states.

Serrano, 30, was in the third year of his eight-year joint general surgery residency and Ph.D. program at Hopkins when he was fired, Levy said.

Serrano received "excellent" evaluations during his two years of clinical residency

If he was in an eight year surgical residency then maybe he completed the first two clinical years, and sounds like he was fired during the research years, when maybe he had time to be more politically active.

I don't doubt that he likely did have really good clinical evals as he did graduate Standford Med and got a competitive specialty at Hopkins.

However, Hopkins does have a somewhat older system of medical education, at least as far as I heard about the IM department, and no doubt that many surgical professors were probably upset about the anonymous complaint, which apparently wasn't even initiated by this resident, he just became the fall guy.

I am sure that Hopkins feels that they are one of the top ten academic centers in the country, but that probably fueled their anger when somebody told them that they weren't all that.

Hopkins should be added to the abusive programs list.

This appears to be two instances where two different programs at the same hospital really don't care about duty hours and believe that their residency program is somehow above the rules. A lot of high powered academic places feel that they should have the power to make their own rules and really hate it when subordinates call them on it.
 

Sounds typical. I've heard about this so many times- it's like standard prep for pre-firing residents. Pathetic system. I hope the he wins the lawsuit, totally rooting for him:thumbup:

What happens if you refuse to see a psychiatrist? I see no benefit to seeing one. If their evaluation supports you, it will be ignored, as if it never happened. If its against you, it will be a key piece of "evidence" in your dismissal. And, one could argue, that if the resident's deficiencies are not readily observable at work and do not impede functioning at work, and only a psychiatrist could root them out, that these deficiencies are likely not relevant to the work at all, and, contrariwise, that if the deficiencies are readily observable at work and impede functioning, there is no need for psychiatric confirmation of something that is already known.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The whole situation is very disheartening. Again, we do not have both sides of the story, so we really are only playing with 1/2 a deck.

Regardless:
1. Residents should be evaluated on their clinical skills / six core competencies.
2. If a resident's performance is unsatsifactory, marginal, or takes a big turn for the worse unexpectedly, then the resident will meet with their PD to review their performance.
3. At the review, the resident is told that their performance is sub-par, and told that it's possible that a physical or psychiatric illness could be playing a role. They have the option of being evaluated for such a problem. Any evaluation is kept private from the PD, unless the evaluation discovers that the resident is unfit to preform the job -- if so, the PD is simply told that the resident will be out of work for some period of time.
4. If the resident declines to be evaluated, and their performance does not improve, the excuse of "I was depressed" or "I was sick" will not be valid in the future.

If the evaluation finds a serious, long term issue that could impact patient care (such as alcoholism / drug abuse), then the long term plan may include ongoing monitoring. However, such monitoring should be the purvue of Occ Med and not the PD's office.

PD's should not (and have no legal authority to) require psychiatric evaluation. We can require a "fit for duty" evaluation which can include a psych eval if the resident's performance is such that we feel that they are unsafe to practice, but such evaluations still should remain private to the resident except for the "fit/not fit" decision, and certainly should not be part of their evaluation.

Even in the best of scenarios, though, there is always room for abuse. If someone is found unfit for duty and treatment does not fix the problem, they are essentially fired. It is difficult (if not impossible) to ensure that the physician who assesses the resident for fitness is both 1) independent from the program such that the fitness decision cannot be influenced by the PD, and 2) understands the requirements of the position and gives a fair assessment, not simply the answer that the resident wants. It's much like disability forms. My patients bring them to me. I often think "hey, you're really not that disabled, you should be able to work". But in my role as a patient advocate, I often try to complete the forms as much in their favor as I can live with.
 
However, Hopkins does have a somewhat older system of medical education, at least as far as I heard about the IM department

What do you mean by "older system"? It seems that their "older" system is still churning out the most respectable clinicians.
Just curious?
 
I like to associate a name with a picture.

Ep6_02Oscar.jpg


Ep6_14Oscar.jpg
 
I graduated from Hopkins Med, but I'm not in their surgery residency program. I do know Oscar, he was my intern when I was a med student on my surgery rotation (Halsted trauma rotation and cardiothoracic surgery, both teams were featured on the show "Hopkins", Brian was my CT surgery fellow and he was one of the main characters, now I believe he's on faculty at UT Southwestern).

I met and spoken to Dr Freischlag several times, she's semi-famous being the first female chair at Hopkins and I know who Dr Lipsett is, although I've never spoken to her.

My thoughts are these:

1) Oscar was an great intern from my perspective. I'm calling BS on anybody terminating him for "performance" reasons. If thats a legit dismissal, then something extremely odd caused Oscar's performance to change after I left, because during my time with him he was nothing but professional, knowledgeable, hard-working, and had equal surgical/SICU skills compared to the other surgery interns I saw on service.

2) Oscar at no time exhibited any kind of "mental illness" while I was around him. I guess its possible he could have been hiding it from me, but we spent a good 10 hours together every day for 4 solid weeks, including six 30 hour call periods and never once did I get the impression that he was mentally unstable.

3) Dr Freischlag seems like a nice person to me, I never got the impression she was a bitch or petty or looking to stab people in the back. She actually mentioned the work hours rules to the med students on surgery and she didnt give me the impression that she disliked them or was annoyed by them.

4) The surgery dept has never been in trouble at Hopkins, you guys are thinking about the internal medicine dept, who temporarily lost their accreditation a few years back for work hours violations. Thats a whole other story that I could go into--needless to say the departments are not similar at all and you cant lump them together.

Overall, I'm confused by this situation. The portrayal of Oscar as being mentally ill does not fit with what I saw when I was at Hopkins, but Dr Freischlag being portrayed as a petty vindictive woman who is trying to silence critics of the surgery program also does not jive with what I experienced while I was there.

There's a lot of missing info, and I cant reconcile the portraits of either Dr Serrano or Dr Freischlag that the article gives based on my personal experience with both of them.
 
However, Hopkins does have a somewhat older system of medical education, at least as far as I heard about the IM department, and no doubt that many surgical professors were probably upset about the anonymous complaint, which apparently wasn't even initiated by this resident, he just became the fall guy.

I am sure that Hopkins feels that they are one of the top ten academic centers in the country, but that probably fueled their anger when somebody told them that they weren't all that.

Hopkins should be added to the abusive programs list.

This appears to be two instances where two different programs at the same hospital really don't care about duty hours and believe that their residency program is somehow above the rules. A lot of high powered academic places feel that they should have the power to make their own rules and really hate it when subordinates call them on it.

Hold on, I dont think you can use this one article written by a plaintiff's lawyer to reach the sweeping generalizations you are making.

Again, I would not make the mistake of lumping the surgery and the IM depts together. They are functionally separate entities. The IM chairman and program director were clearly advocating an outright breaking of the work hours rules until the residents got word that the ACGME was pulling their accreditation--that forced the IM leadership to play ball and stop the shenanigans.

As a med student, I rotated on the IM service after they had been spanked by the ACGME and forced to change their system and from what I can tell, they were just as compliant as everybody else. On the other hand, I think Hopkins surgery (just like most surgery programs out there) tacitly violate work hours because most attendings (and even most of the residents) have this sense of belief that playing "by the rules" means that they will not see enough cases. I've talked to probably 30 surgery residents about this issue at multiple programs, and 90% of them were OK with going over work hours to some degree if it meant they would get to do more cases. IMHO, surgery residents are innately more willing to violate hours compared to "non-procedural" based residents.
 
Ah, I loved that guy. He replaced the water for the nurses one time. Such a nice, optimistic guy to be doing surgery. What a shame.
 
There was a class president a couple years ahead of me in med school who went to JHU for IM and only lasted about a year. This was several years ago, and they did not have a reputation for being a friendly program...at least in terms of work hours they were way, way over.

As far as this surgical resident, I have no personal knowledge. However, having been through med school and residency at fairly similar institutions vs. the ones where he trained, I think it is very doubtful that he has a significant personality disorder or mental health issue. It would be quite odd for someone to do that well at Stanford and in the 1st two years of a grueling surgical residency like that and then suddenly become clinically incompetent or impossible to work with, personality-wise. I guess anything is possible but it seems unlikely. It seems much more likely that he has a pretty high self esteem, and is smart and assertive and just became too politically active and assertive for the JHU departmental attendings and administration. Perhaps he expressed himself in inappropriate ways, such as yelling at people or being overly argumentative. My experience is that sometimes really smart peole get themselves in these types of situations...I have known a couple of residents like that. Surgeons do not like people who step out of line and defy the hierarchy. They want to take him down. What makes this case interesting is that I think it will be hard for them to prove or suggest he is incompetent, vs. some of the other people who have sued residency programs after being fired. He might actually win. I don't think that he'll be able to get into another surgical residency, but I may be wrong...
 
I wonder where he got the 24million figure? Hard to believe he'd be able to get that much...if he wins the lawyers will probably get 2/3 of whatever he gets, as well.

This is the most interesting one of the fired-resident lawsuits that I've seen, b/c it seems like it's going to be hard for the hospital to make his competence an issue. Unless he did something totally wacked out like cussed out a bunch of attendings, it's hard to believe they won't end up settling with him or something...
 
I am heartened to see so many recent threads about residents who are fighting the unfair practices of our system of medical training. [e.g. not adhering to the 80-hr work week]

Independent thought and honesty are traits that do not serve a resident well.

I watched "The Lives of Others" the other night; a great foreign flick about life in East Germany underneath the Iron Curtain. I thought that the blacklisting of artists and intellectuals who subverted or did not agree with the practices of the government paralleled the experience of residents like Dr. Serrano.

Slavery is freedom.
 
Oh wow, now I know who he is. That's crazy...

me too! I thought that was him! Damn that sucks. I saw him on the show, and he was really nice and seemed to geniuenly care for his patients. They made a mistake firing this guy. He was very likeable on TV. any person who saw the show would inherently be on his side.
 
I am heartened to see so many recent threads about residents who are fighting the unfair practices of our system of medical training. [e.g. not adhering to the 80-hr work week]

Independent thought and honesty are traits that do not serve a resident well.

I watched "The Lives of Others" the other night; a great foreign flick about life in East Germany underneath the Iron Curtain. I thought that the blacklisting of artists and intellectuals who subverted or did not agree with the practices of the government paralleled the experience of residents like Dr. Serrano.

Slavery is freedom.

Wow. As someone who came from the bloc and is now in medical training...not even close.
 
Thanks to the show, we were all given the privilege of watching a Hopkins physician administer a pneumothorax on national television. I'm just sayin. . .
 
Hopefully he sticks it to them. The biggest problem with residency is the indentured servitude aspect - they can literally do anything to you and your choice is pretty much to forfeit your career or take it. I've seen programs where the PAs are treated far better than the residents because the PAs have the ability to leave if mistreated. If residents had some ability to leave a program without totally screwing themselves the system would magically change a lot overnight.
 
I always thought it was one third plus expenses?

Generally, expenses come off the top and then whats left is split 1/3, 2/3. However, we're talking about (potentially) a huge award here. Expenses aren't going to amount to much on the plaintiff's side, a percent or 2 maybe. Also, if the court were to award the plaintiff fees, that would also help make up the difference. Either way, the attorney is never going to end up with 2/3 of the verdict, unless the verdict is for almost nothing compared to the complaint.

Part of an attorney's ethical responsibility is to charge a reasonable amount for their services. No state bar would consider a straight up 2/3 contingency reasonable, and would likely be seen as so absurd as to merit suspension or disbarring.
 
If you don't have any complications, you're not operating enough.

. . . I'm just sayin that among those with inside information, the case is obviously more complicated than the newspaper articles positioned by his attorney indicate. It's hard to know what to believe, but some restraint is probably in order.
 
. . . I'm just sayin that among those with inside information, the case is obviously more complicated than the newspaper articles positioned by his attorney indicate. It's hard to know what to believe, but some restraint is probably in order.

I'm still not sure what you're saying. :confused:

Are you implying that because the resident caused a PTX he is somehow not a good resident or that he deserved firing?

As Tired noted, any resident that HASN'T caused a PTX when putting in a central line, hasn't done enough of them.
 
No. Complications happen. There are two sides of the story, but one presented here. A whistleblower story along with defamation will always rally residents who feel trodden upon, but that's not the story I heard prior to the suit announcement. It's probably not necessary to elaborate because, honestly, none of us have facts. Restraint is a reasonable approach, but I'm sure you'll come back with something, hopefully involving more caps and emoticons.
 
I'm not sure where your snarkiness is coming from as it is not necessary or even warranted.

I simply was asking a question; sorry if the caps (added for emphasis in 1 word and because the conventional practice is to capitalize abbreviations) and the emoticons (added because I like them) bothered you.

But since you seem to have some information or at least a source of alternative news, why not share it, so we can have at least more of the story?
 
. . . I'm just sayin that among those with inside information, the case is obviously more complicated than the newspaper articles positioned by his attorney indicate. It's hard to know what to believe, but some restraint is probably in order.

That's why I am reserving judgment until trial time. I hope he doesn't settle because I want all the dirty laundry aired. If Hopkins was at fault, I want them pay and pay dearly so that it sets a precedent all residency programs. Don't look at your residents like slave labor. Don't even think about retaliating against them if they speak the truth.
 
It will be very interesting to see how this case turns out. I predict a hush-hush settlement, as this would be hugely embarrassing to Hopkins, but we'll see.
 
Top