throbber
Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`DANIEL HOROWITZ (SBN: 92400)
`LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL HOROWITZ
`3650 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Ste. 225
`Lafayette, CA 94549
`Telephone: (925) 283-1863
`horowitz@physiciandefense.lawyer
`
`CHARLES BOND (SBN: 60611)
`PHYSICIANS’ ADVOCATES
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
`Telephone: (510) 841-7500
`cb@physiciansadvocates.com
`
`KARINA JOHNSON (SBN: 243099)
`c/o PHYSICIANS ADVOCATES
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`Walnut Creek, Ca 94596
`Telephone: (510) 841-7500
`kjohnsonlaw@outlook.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Gail Mallard-Warren, M.D.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION
`
`
`GAIL MALLARD-WARREN, M.D.
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER, THE
`MEDICAL STAFF OF SAINT AGNES
`MEDICAL CENTER and TRINITY
`HEALTH INC., NANCY
`HOLLINGSWORTH, and DOES 1-100.
`Defendants
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`(Rule 201 - Fed. R. Civ. P. 38)
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, GAIL MALLARD-WARREN, M.D. and by and through her
`
`attorneys as to Defendants SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER, THE MEDICAL
`00244501 7
`-1-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`STAFF OF SAINT AGNES MEDICAL CENTER, TRINITY HEALTH, NANCY
`
`HOLLINGSWORTH, AND DOES 1-100, and hereby files this Complaint, alleging as
`
`follows:
`
`1. Dr. Gail Mallard-Warren was one of the first Black doctors in Fresno and the first
`
`female surgeon at Defendant St. Agnes Medical Center (“St. Agnes”). In spite of her
`
`outstanding training, when she arrived at St. Agnes in 1983, her Department Chief wasted
`
`no time in telling her that he would “make her life hell.” Saint Agnes has done just that.
`
`Over the years, Dr. Mallard-Warren has constantly suffered disparate treatment, harassment,
`
`and a hostile work environment. She has withstood overtly sexist and racist comments (as
`
`well as unwanted advances by male physicians), along with ageist and racist treatment from
`
`the nurses, doctors, and hospital administration. Conversations about her – even in her
`
`presence – have been riddled with microaggressions and stereotypes. Nurses call her “Gail”
`
`or “hey you,” while they address other doctors - especially white males – as “Doctor
`
`[Surname].” For Dr. Mallard-Warren’s first-person account of her experiences at St. Agnes
`
`Medical Center, please see Exhibit A which is attached and incorporated by this reference.
`
`2. At St. Agnes, the pattern of disrespect and discrimination is pervasive and extends
`
`throughout the hospital — all the way up to the CEO. Dr. Mallard-Warren has been
`
`presumed to be a housekeeper or an orderly. When she stands up for herself or her patients,
`
`she is accused of having an “attitude.” This ongoing hostile work environment is clearly the
`
`product of a corporate culture of racism and sexism - a culture Dr. Mallard-Warren wishes
`
`to address head-on. When Dr. Mallard-Warren has had to advocate for herself and her
`
`00244501 7
`
`-2-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`patients, Defendants have stereotyped her as an “angry Black woman” and have punished
`
`her unjustly in an effort to silence her and discredit her. 1
`
`PARTIES
`
`3. Plaintiff, Dr. Gail Mallard-Warren (“Dr. Mallard-Warren”) is a Black Physician
`
`specializing in Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Infertility in Fresno, California. She received
`
`her B.S. from the University of California, Riverside in 1975 and her M.D. Degree from the
`
`University of California, Davis in 1979. She completed her internship and residency in
`
`Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco affiliated program
`
`at Valley Medical Center of Fresno in 1983. She is a Diplomate of the American Board of
`
`Obstetrics and Gynecology and holds memberships in the National Medical Association,
`
`American Medical Association, and several other professional medical associations.
`
`4. Dr. Mallard-Warren is suing on her own behalf and in her representative capacity on
`
`behalf of her patients - especially her Black patients. In line with Dr. Mallard-Warren’s deep
`
`spiritual beliefs, she is bringing this suit to help the Hospital and the community address and
`
`resolve its problems with racial and gender discrimination. Her patients are being
`
`stereotyped. She wants to help because she has witnessed Black patients at Saint Agnes
`
`getting a level of care that is far, far below the care given to other patients – care that inflicts
`
`unnecessary suffering and harm to patients. Dr. Mallard-Warren has witnessed the Labor
`
`
`1 Research has shown that Black women in the United States are often victims of bias, and resultant
`aggressions, due to the pervasive trope of the “angry Black woman.” A paper published in the Iowa Law
`Review in 2017 entitled “Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry
`Black Woman” (Iowa Law Review, vol. 102, no. 5, July 2017) describes a pattern in which Black women in
`America face frequent denigration, and those who dare to challenge those actions or the underlying bias itself
`wind up being blamed. The article further comments on the “risk that if a Black woman were to challenge
`embedded assumptions, the focus would shift from the aggressor’s act to the appropriateness of the Black
`woman’s response… a Black woman who pushes back against her marginalization gets transformed by society
`into the “Angry Black Woman… The problem becomes the Black woman as opposed to the conditions to
`which she is responding” (Jones 28; emphasis added). This precise behavior has been going on at St. Agnes
`for a long time.
`00244501 7
`
`-3-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`and Delivery nurses treat Black patients2 differently than other patients. They ignored Black
`
`patients’ needs, choosing to treat white patients before Black patients, even though the Black
`
`patients were in more urgent need of care. She has seen Black patients shoved into the
`
`hallway in wheelchairs and forgotten for hours while white patients were given beds. She
`
`has seen Black patients neglected, having to lie in their own filth; and she has seen care
`
`withheld to Black patients and heard the nurses say things like, “Black people don’t feel
`
`pain as much, so don’t give them as much painkilling medicine” or “Don’t give Black
`
`patients pain medicines, they are all just addicts.” In Fresno County, a Black mother and
`
`infant are three times as likely to die as white patients. The injustice of unequal care must be
`
`addressed.
`
`THE DEFENDANTS AND UNNAMED PARTIES
`
`5. Saint Agnes Medical Center (“St. Agnes”) is a California non-profit corporation,
`
` and is an affiliated corporation with Trinity Health, Inc. It operates Saint Agnes Medical
`
`Center in Fresno, California. Dr. Mallard-Warren has applied for, received, and held
`
`privileges to practice at St. Agnes since 1983. Saint Agnes has a pattern and practice of
`
`discrimination, especially against older Black women. It is part of their larger campaign to
`
`keep Black doctors and patients out of St. Agnes Medical Center. St. Agnes has over 400
`
`physicians on the medical staff. Fewer than 20 are Black. Within the course of a year, St.
`
`Agnes disciplined two older Black female physicians in an effort to drive them and their
`
`patients away from the hospital.
`
`6. The Medical Staff of Saint Agnes Medical Center (“The Medical Staff”) is a self-
`
`governing organization of health providers at St. Agnes. The Medical Staff is governed by
`
`
`2 Including Dr. Mallard-Warren’s patients on whose behalf she brings this lawsuit.
`00244501 7
`-4-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`its Medical Executive Committee (“MEC”) which is chaired by its Chief of Staff. The
`
`Medical Staff is regulated by its by-laws. In all matters, including peer review, the Medical
`
`Staff is accountable to the Board of Trustees of St. Agnes, and thus was, at all times relevant
`
`herein, acting as the agent of St. Agnes.
`
`7. Trinity Health, Inc. (“Trinity”) is a major health corporation incorporated in
`
`Indiana. Trinity owns approximately 92 hospitals and hundreds of primary, specialty and
`
`continuing care centers in 22 states. It owns, operates, and controls Defendant, Saint Agnes
`
`Medical Center in Fresno, California. It employs or contracts directly or indirectly other
`
`persons who are identified herein. It is an affiliated corporation with St. Agnes Medical
`
`Center (Cal. Corp. Code §150). All actions and conduct done by St. Agnes, its agents,
`
`servants, employees, management, board, and executive team, were endorsed, ratified, and
`
`adopted by Trinity.
`
`8. Nancy Hollingsworth (“Hollingsworth”) is a registered nurse who functions as
`
`the CEO and President of St. Agnes. She is an employee of Trinity and other corporations
`
`affiliated with Trinity and St. Agnes. Nancy Hollingsworth is prohibited by law from
`
`making medical decisions because she is not a licensed physician (Business & Professions
`
`Code § 2052). All wrongful conduct by Nancy Hollingsworth was done in the course and
`
`scope of her position as CEO and President of St. Agnes and as an agent of Trinity.
`
`9. The Patient is the mother who is at the center of this case. She presented at the St.
`
` Agnes Labor and Delivery Department as an extremely high-risk OB patient with a very
`
`complicated case. The Patient was carrying twins, but she was only 22 or 23 weeks along in
`
`her pregnancy.
`
`10. Camilla Marquez, M.D. was the Chair of the OB/GYN Department at St. Agnes
`
`00244501 7
`
`-5-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`and was the treating physician for The Patient. On June 16, 2016 Dr. Marquez attended the
`
`birth of the Patient’s first twin (Twin A), but the baby did not survive. As soon as Twin A
`
`was delivered, however, Dr. Marquez abandoned the patient and left on vacation to Hawaii,
`
`leaving Twin B undelivered and The Patient in the Hospital. Dr. Marquez is a member of
`
`Dr. Mallard-Warren’s call group, but Dr. Marquez never provided Dr. Mallard-Warren any
`
`briefing or doctor-to-doctor handoff for this complicated, high-risk patient. Providing a
`
`comprehensive doctor-to-doctor handoff is the standard of care in such complex cases.
`
`Ironically, when Dr. Marquez came back, she led the charge in accusing Dr. Mallard-Warren
`
`of wrongdoing. On the other hand, Dr. Marquez, (who is not Black), was not disciplined for
`
`abandoning this patient and failing to assure that her covering doctors were informed
`
`properly. Dr. Marquez is not named as a Defendant herein, but her conduct was ratified by
`
`St. Agnes and the Medical Staff.
`
`11. Plaintiff sues defendants Does 1-100 by their fictitious names as their true names
`
` and/or capacities are presently unknown. When their true names and capacities are known,
`
`plaintiff will amend this complaint to reflect the same over.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question) / 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (Supplemental)
`
`12. The claims that arise under 42 U.S.C. 1981 are filed in the United States District
`
` Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as they present a federal question. This Court has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1367 over all other claims as they arise from
`
`the same facts and circumstances that are contained in the claims under 42 U.S.C.
`
`1981.Venue is proper as the conduct took place primarily in the city of Fresno, California.
`
`00244501 7
`
`-6-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`DR. MALLARD-WARREN KEEPS ST. AGNES FROM REPRODUCTIVELY
`MAIMING A PATIENT AND GETS DISCIPLINED FOR IT
`
`13. At 5:31 in the morning of June 19, 2016, Dr. Mallard-Warren was awakened by a
`
` phone call. At the other end of the line was an inexperienced nurse from the St. Agnes
`
`Labor and Delivery room who started talking about a patient Dr. Mallard-Warren had never
`
`heard of before. The nurse identified the patient as being the patient of Dr. Albuquerque.
`
`Dr. Mallard-Warren did not cover for Dr. Albuquerque, so Dr. Mallard-Warren did not
`
`understand why she was being called about another doctor’s patient. It would have been a
`
`breach of the standard of care and of medical ethics for Dr. Mallard-Warren to have taken
`
`over the care of another doctor’s patient.
`
`14. The nurse was ordering Dr. Mallard-Warren to come into the Hospital and perform
`
`a Cesarean section on this patient. Nurses do not give orders to doctors. Normally such
`
`communications are doctor-to-doctor.
`
`15. Upon further questioning of the nurse, Dr. Mallard-Warren learned that the patient
`
`was extraordinarily high risk, as she was only 22-23 weeks along in her pregnancy. The
`
`grossly premature (22-23 weeks gestational age). For sound medical reasons, the American
`
`College of Obstetrics and Gynecology advises that it is below the standard of care to
`
`perform a C-section at that early gestational stage. Dr. Mallard-Warren’s personal policy
`
`(consistent with these standards) is not to perform C-sections on women who are less than
`
`24 weeks because the surgery reproductively maims the mother and does not significantly
`
`impact infant mortality or morbidity. Instead, the standard of care in such cases is to
`
`vaginally deliver the child, not to do a C-section. For these reasons, Dr. Mallard-Warren told
`
`the nurse that she would not do a C-section on this patient.
`
`00244501 7
`
`-7-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`16. Once it was established that this would be a vaginal delivery, Dr. Mallard-Warren
`
` agreed to come in when it was appropriate to do so. The hospital has established protocols
`
`for vaginal deliveries, whereby the nurses attend the patient until the mother is ready to
`
`deliver. The nurses then call the doctor to come in and deliver the baby if it is a live birth.3
`
`This was the protocol to be followed in this case; the nurse was to call Dr. Mallard-Warren
`
`to come in when the delivery was imminent. That call never came.
`
`17. Thus, to save a patient she had never heard of before from having unnecessary
`
` surgery that would have resulted in permanent harm, Dr. Mallard-Warren had to
`
`countermand the “order” from the nurse. The nurse apparently got angry that Dr. Mallard-
`
`Warren didn’t obey her “order”, so she decided to “take it up the chain.” She told her
`
`supervisor that Dr. Mallard-Warren was refusing to come in, which was not true. In fact, Dr.
`
`Mallard-Warren told the nurse she would come in when the patient was ready to deliver
`
`vaginally. The nurse attempted to amplify the urgency of the situation by telling her
`
`supervisor that the doctor needed to come in because the patient was “bleeding.” In fact, one
`
`of the OB/GYNs on site examined the patient and described her bleeding as “normal show.”
`
`No abnormal blood loss was recorded in the patient’s medical chart and no transfusion was
`
`needed. So, the nurse engaged in hyperbole – at Dr. Mallard-Warren’s expense. Rather than
`
`checking the facts with Dr. Mallard-Warren, the supervisor called her boss, who in turn
`
`passed the report on to the CEO of the entire hospital system, Nancy Hollingsworth. By the
`
`time Hollingsworth became involved, the facts had passed through many hands and had
`
`become garbled.
`
`
`3 The commonly accepted practice at St. Agnes is that physicians are not required to attend the delivery of a
`stillborn infant. Given the gestational age of this baby and the trauma of delivery it was very possible the fetus
`would be stillborn.
`00244501 7
`
`-8-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`18. The CEO immediately took the very unusual step of calling Dr. Mallard-Warren,
`
`demanding that she come to the hospital and perform the C-section. Dr. Mallard -Warren
`
`was taken aback that the highest-level hospital executive was trying to tell her how to treat a
`
`patient, especially ordering her to do harmful surgery. Keeping in mind that Dr. Mallard-
`
`Warren had just heard of this case moments before, she tried to explain her medical
`
`judgments (which ultimately proved to be 100% correct). The CEO kept trying to bully Dr.
`
`Mallard-Warren into performing a C-section. Dr. Mallard-Warren tried to explain that she
`
`and the nurse had agreed that Dr. Mallard-Warren would come in to attend a live birth. The
`
`CEO did not listen and continued to be irate that Dr. Mallard-Warren would not come into
`
`the hospital to do the surgical procedure, even though the course of treatment had been
`
`changed to a vaginal delivery. Dr. Mallard-Warren never refused to come in.
`
`19. During their telephone conversation, the CEO threatened Dr. Mallard-Warren with
`
`suspension of her hospital privileges and a disciplinary investigation. Soon after she hung
`
`up, the CEO started the wheels in motion for just such an investigation. She emailed the
`
`L&D nurses soliciting their complaints about the incident and asking them to comment on
`
`Dr. Mallard-Warren’s “attitude.” The word “attitude” is often used as a racially charged dog
`
`whistle, leaning on the trope of the “angry Black woman.” After receiving the CEO’s email,
`
`the nurses made several “late entries” into the medical records.4 All were written in a tone
`
`critical of Dr. Mallard-Warren. All used the phrase Dr. Mallard-Warren “refused” to come
`
`in. These notes, however, contained significant inaccuracies and contradictions throughout,
`
`evidencing a conspiracy against Dr. Mallard-Warren.
`
`
`4 Nurses’ notes are supposed to be entered in real time. Notes entered later are suspect and often motivated by
`an agenda other than simply recording the medical care rendered.
`00244501 7
`-9-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`20. The nurses in Labor and Delivery have had a longstanding bias against Dr. Mallard-
`
`Warren based on her race, age, and gender. They have repeatedly filed secret complaints
`
`against Dr. Mallard-Warren that were baseless and rooted in racism, sexism, and ageism.
`
`21. In the telephone confrontation, the CEO did not disclose to Dr. Mallard-Warren
`
`that she had already asked the two hospital-employed OB hospitalists who were on site in
`
`the L&D Department to perform the C-section. Both refused. In fact, both doctors felt so
`
`strongly that the procedure was inappropriate that the hospital CEO later reported that they
`
`were at the bedside and “refused to do the C-Section for a 23-week gestation unless the
`
`Hospital Administrator was in attendance.” This was unusually confrontational language,
`
`indicating how strongly they agreed with Dr. Mallard-Warren’s medical judgement not to
`
`perform a C-section. Accordingly, the hospitalists went to the Patient and got the Patient to
`
`change her consent from a C-section to vaginal delivery. Shortly after the patient changed
`
`her consent, she very rapidly delivered the baby vaginally. Neither of the white hospitalists
`
`were disciplined for refusing to do the C-section, but Dr. Mallard-Warren was.
`
`22. After hanging up with the CEO – even though she had not heard from the nurse that
`
`the patient was ready to deliver – Dr. Mallard-Warren went to the hospital and arrived in
`
`time to deliver the placenta.
`
`23. Two months later, following up on the CEO’s threat to discipline Dr. Mallard-
`
`Warren, Defendants suspended Dr. Mallard-Warren’s privileges. Summary suspensions are
`
`supposed to be used in cases where a doctor poses a risk of imminent patient harm. The fact
`
`that it took two months for the hospital to act (during which time Dr. Mallard-Warren held
`
`complete privileges without incident) is evidence that there was no real threat that could
`
`00244501 7
`
`-10-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`possibly be labeled “imminent” – especially since the underlying facts in this case were very
`
`unusual and the outcome was completely as expected.
`
`24. The suspension was initially imposed for ten (10) days, during which time Dr.
`
`Mallard-Warren was summoned before the Medical Executive Committee of the hospital
`
`medical staff to explain. Dr. Mallard-Warren had not been provided the medical records of
`
`the incident when she initially met with Medical Staff representatives on August 8, 2016 and
`
`was expected to talk from memory about events that had occurred almost two months
`
`before. In her meeting before the Medical Executive Committee, she was unaware of the
`
`criticisms in the notes or the fact that they were “LE” (late entries). In a meeting with the
`
`MEC, she affirmed the medical correctness of her decision not to perform a C-section,
`
`because it would cause permanent harm the patient. In spite of the fact that she was right,
`
`and the patient suffered no harm or unexpected outcome, the Executive Committee extended
`
`the suspension to thirty (30) days — because Dr. Mallard-Warren was “unrepentant.”
`
`25. That extension carried with it huge consequences for Dr. Mallard-Warren. Any
`
`suspension lasting 30 days gets reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank. The NPDB
`
`was intended to be a national database of disciplined and malpracticing doctors, i.e. “bad
`
`doctors.” A report to the Data Bank is a serious stain on a doctor’s reputation, and it carries
`
`significant economic consequences. Every credentialing body (i.e. any institution looking
`
`into the doctor’s background) is required by law to check with the Data Bank to see if the
`
`doctor has been disciplined. The average doctor fills out about twelve (12) credentialing
`
`applications per year. This includes applications for hospital medical staff privileges, state
`
`medical licensure, specialty board certification, medical society memberships, malpractice
`
`insurance, etc. All must check the Data Bank. Most importantly, health insurers and health
`
`00244501 7
`
`-11-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`plans must check the Data Bank before adding a doctor to their panel of participating or
`
`“contracting” physicians. Some health insurers automatically exclude doctors with a Data
`
`Bank entry (e.g. Anthem/Blue Cross). A Data Bank entry is never erased, so the doctor lives
`
`with a lifelong stigma that has to be explained every time they fill out a credentialing
`
`application. A 30-day summary suspension, therefore, not only deprives a doctor of access
`
`to the hospital where she makes her living (especially an OB/GYN), but it can also carry
`
`with it lifelong reputational and economic harm.
`
`
`26. The Chair of the Hospital Obstetrics Department, Dr. Marquez, (who happened
`
`to be the doctor who abandoned the patient to go on vacation) was a member of the MEC.
`
`Dr. Marquez went to Dr. Mallard-Warren and told her that if she would just confess and say
`
`that she should have come in when she was called, the Committee would roll back the
`
`suspension to fifteen (15) days so it would not be reportable. This was unadulterated
`
`extortion.5 To escape allegations of extortion the hospital has claimed that Dr. Marquez was
`
`not acting in her official capacity as Department Chair or as a Committee member, but to
`
`Dr. Mallard-Warren she sure did seem like she had the power and official sanction to coerce
`
`a confession. The proof that Dr. Marquez’s maneuver was extortive is that when Dr.
`
`Mallard-Warren furnished what Dr. Marquez wanted, the Committee did what Dr. Marquez
`
`said they would do and rolled back the suspension. The extorted confession was a carefully
`
`orchestrated effort to get Dr. Mallard-Warren to accept all the blame and extract the hospital
`
`from liability.
`
`
`5 Extortion is the “obtaining of property or other consideration from another, with his or her consent, induced
`by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under cover of official right” (Penal Code 878).
`00244501 7
`-12-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`27. Simultaneously, Hospital counsel sent Dr. Mallard-Warren’s attorney a blanket
`
`release and expected Dr. Mallard-Warren would sign it on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, and the
`
`Chief of Staff also approached Dr. Mallard-Warren directly with an attorney-prepared
`
`release and told her she had to sign it. She did not. When put in its factual context, this is
`
`just another example of the Hospital’s abuse of its power in its shameful treatment of Dr.
`
`Mallard-Warren.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ EXTORTIONATE BEHAVIOR FORCES DR. MALLARD-
`WARREN TO SEEK A HEARING TO CLEAR HER NAME
`
`28. After Dr. Mallard-Warren did not sign the release, Defendants refused to confirm
`
`or deny whether Dr. Mallard-Warren’s suspension was rolled back to the non-reportable
`
`fifteen (15) days. This left Dr. Mallard-Warren in serious procedural limbo: the Medical
`
`Staff Bylaws require the physician to request a hearing within thirty (30) days of the
`
`suspension or forever lose her right to pursue any administrative remedy or seek any remedy
`
`in a court of law.6 By the Hospital hiding the ball, Dr. Mallard-Warren had no choice but to
`
`request a hearing. Since that time, as a part of its discriminatory scheme to drive her from
`
`the Medical Staff, the Hospital has made the hearing process as unfair and oppressive as
`
`possible.
`
`29. The Business and Professions Code § 809 et seq. and the Medical Staff Bylaws
`
`guarantee physicians who are disciplined the right to clear their name in a prompt, fair
`
`hearing. Because she never got a straight answer as to the length of her discipline or its
`
`reportability, Dr. Mallard-Warren had to demand her right to have a hearing. It has now
`
`
`6 Bylaws of the Medical Staff of Saint Agnes Medical Center 7.3-1(f)
`(Amended and Restated Effective: January 27, 2012)
`00244501 7
`-13-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 14 of 46
`
`
`
`been over six years since the events, and Defendants have not even been able to
`
`assemble a fair panel of doctors to serve on the Judicial Review Committee. Hence the
`
`hearing to clear Dr. Mallard-Warren’s name has not even started. All the while, her
`
`reputation has been damaged by the hospital’s discriminatory discipline.
`
`30. On August 24, 2016, the MEC voted to limit Dr. Mallard-Warren’s suspension to
`
`14 days, but they did not tell Dr. Mallard-Warren. A suspension of 14 days or less does not
`
`have to be reported to the Medical Board or the National Practitioner Data Bank. The
`
`National Practitioners’ Data Bank (NPDB) is a federal data base that identifies doctors who
`
`have a history of malpractice or medical discipline.
`
`31. The consequences of such reporting can be devastating to the doctor's reputation
`
`and career. Obviously, a report to the Medical Board could place her license to practice
`
`medicine in jeopardy. At a minimum it would trigger an investigation by the Board that she
`
`would have to defend and disclose on all future applications, regardless of the outcome.7
`
`32. Similarly, a report to the Data Bank creates a stain on the physician's reputation
`
`that can never be erased. The Data Bank must be consulted by virtually all bodies
`
`credentialling Dr. Mallard- Warren in the future. Reporting, therefore, can create a cascade
`
`of problems for a physician. Adverse reports can imperil privileges at other hospitals,
`
`participation in payor panels, the underwriting and premiums for the doctor's malpractice
`
`insurance, membership in medical organizations, especially specialty societies, continued
`
`qualification for Board certification, etc.
`
`33. Reporting is the single most powerful way to disrupt and even destroy a
`
`
`7 The average physician fills out about 12 applications per year. Almost all applications now require the doctor
`to self-disclose whether she has been the subject of any Medical Board investigations—regardless of whether
`the Board takes any action or not.
`00244501 7
`
`-14-
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`2033 N. Main St., Ste. 340
`
`Physicians’ Advocates
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-at-00969 Document 1 Filed 10/15/21 Page 15 of 46
`
`
`
`doctor's career. The monetary loss to the doctor can be incalculable, but the psychological
`
`toll is always devastating. Thus, anyone who threatens to report a doctor to these
`
`administrative agencies wields a heavy weapon capable of instilling real and palpable fear in
`
`the hearts and minds of all reasonable physicians. The threat of reportable discipline is
`
`overwhelmingly intimidating to a physician.
`
`34. On August 24, 2016, the Chief of Staff, Dr. Sandhu, called Dr. Mallard-Warren.
`
`Without telling her that the MEC had already voted to limit her suspension to the non-
`
`reportable 14 days, he issued Dr. Mallard-Warren a clear ultimatum. He said that the MEC
`
`would be willing to shorten the suspension to 14 days (thereby avoiding any reporting to the
`
`Medical Board and NPDB) if she would sign a Release of all Claims that very same day. Dr.
`
`Sandhu went on to say that the "lawyers" were finalizing the document and he would get it
`
`to her for her signature that day. He was very insistent that she sign the Release that same
`
`day if she wanted the suspension to be nonreportable. Because of Dr. Sandhu' s official
`
`position as Chief of Staff, she understood him to be issuing an ultimatum: If she wanted the
`
`suspension not to be reported she had to sign the Release. Dr. Sandhu made it clear that the
`
`Release was offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. A Release extinguishes any claims for
`
`monetary or other relief Dr. Mallard-Warren might have aga

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket