Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 11
`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of11
`
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`NOTICE OF REMOVAL
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 11
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`2022 Mar 01 PM 4:20
`CLERK OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
`CASE NUMBER: 2022-CV-000075
`
`IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, KANSAS
`
`Dawn Link,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`Lawrence Memorial Hospital,
`Blake Conklin, D.O.,
`Megan Pedersen,
`Alyssa Austin, and
`Holly Soetaert,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`Div. No.
`Chapter 60
`
`PETIlloN
`
`COMES NOW the Plaintiff on the date of this filing, by and through counsel Bradley Hook of
`Hook Law Office Chartered, and for her cause of action against Defendants, Plaintiff states as follows:
`
`Parties , Jurisdiction.a nI Venue
`
`1. Plaintiff Dawn Link is an individual residing at 2106 Willow Bend, Tonganoxie,
`Kansas 66086.
`
`2. Defendant Lawrence Memorial Hospital (LMH) is a Kansas body politic and
`governmental entity, headquartered in Douglas County at 325 Maine Street, Lawrence, Kansas 66044,
`and may be served under K.S.A. 60-.304(d)(4) through its Secretary, or otherwise through any officer,
`director, or manager of the body politic. At the time of this filing, the Secretary of Lawrence Memorial
`Hospital's governing body is Pat Mifier, whose term expires September 30, 2023.
`3. Defendant Blake Conklin, D.O., is an individual doctor licensed to practice medicine
`in the State of Kansas, and whose primary place of business is located in Douglas County at 330
`Arkansas Street Suite 202, Lawrence, Kansas 66044.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`4. Defendant Megan Pedersen is an individual believed to be residing in Douglas County
`at 517 Lawrence Avenue, Lawrence, Kansas 66049, and employed by and regularly working at
`Defendant LMH's primary place of business.
`
`5. Defendant Alyssa Austin is an individual believed to be residing in Douglas County at
`3818 Daylily Court A, Lawrence, Kansas 66049, and employed by and regularly working at Defendant
`LMH's primary place of business.
`
`6. Defendant Holly Soetaert is an individual believed to be residing in Leavenworth
`County at 316 East 8TH Street, Tonganoxie, Kansas 66086, and employed by and regularly working at
`Defendant LMH's primary place of business.
`
`7. Because the allegations in this petition occurred at a place of business in Douglas
`County, Kansas, jurisdiction and venue in the Seventh Judicial District, the District Court of Douglas
`County, Kansas, are proper under the laws of Kansas.
`
`Factual Background
`
`8. This cause of action arises from actions of the Defendants or their agents beginning on
`or about April 1, 2021, and culminating on or about May 4, 2021, and occurring in Douglas County,
`Kansas.
`
`9. In the time leading up to April 1, 2021, Plaintiff was under the care of a physician for a
`medical condition which interfered with her work schedule. At the advice of Plaintiff's supervisor,
`Defendant Alyssa Austin, Plaintiff investigated and applied for leave under the Family Medical Leave
`Act (FMLA). Under the care of a physician of Plaintiff's choice, Plaintiff began taking leave, as needed,
`under FMLA for her medical condition.
`
`10. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, Plaintiff began missing more work. In addition
`to her leave under FMLA, Plaintiff was required to miss work based on Defendant LMH's policy that
`prohibited symptomatic employees from reporting for duty.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`11. Defendants Alyssa Austin and Holly Soetaert, who are Plaintiff's supervisors, called
`Plaintiff into their office for a meeting to raise concerns over the amount of work Plaintiff was missing.
`At this meeting, Defendant Austin suggested that Plaintiff see one of Defendant Lawrence Memorial
`Hospital's physicians who had informally advised Defendant Austin that Plaintiff's condition was not
`being treated properly if she was still missing work. Defendant Austin also advised Plaintiff that
`Defendant LMH's doctors would not issue paperwork supporting FMLA leave for Plaintiff's
`condition.
`
`12. Plaintiff was satisfied with the care and treatment of her existing physician and did not
`change doctors as advised by her supervisors.
`
`13. Plaintiff did start seeing Defendant Blake Conklin, D.O., who is a physician working at
`Defendant LMH's place of business, for a completely unrelated condition. Plaintiff opted to see a
`physician affiliated with her employer for this condition because of substantial benefits offered to
`employees which would make her care more affordable.
`
`14. On or about April 1, 2021, Plaintiff had missed work again under her FMLA leave.
`Upon returning to work, she was called into the supervisors' office again. Plaintiff's use of FMLA leave
`and compliance with Defendant LMH's policy regarding COVID-19 were described as showing a
`pattern of excessive absences and might subject Plaintiff to disciplinary action. Plaintiff was confused as
`to the issue being raised in this manner because she had been advised to use FMLA leave by her
`supervisor and the employer policy regarding COVID-19 was clear.
`
`15. On or about April 27,2021, Plaintiff had a meeting with Defendant Austin,
`Defendant Soetaert, and a senior director, Defendant Megan Pedersen, as well as staff from the human
`resources department. Plaintiff believed this to be a meeting intended to mediate the issues that were
`raised during the April 1 meeting. Plaintiff was informed that a mistake had occurred, the supervisors
`had been misinformed, and the meeting on April 1 should never have happened.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`16. About one week later, on or about May 4, 2021, Defendant Pedersen sent an email out
`to numerous clinics and departments within Defendant LMH's communication system. Defendant
`Pedersen had accessed Plaintiff's medical records and used Plaintiff's actual medical records from her
`treatment with Defendant Conklin as the only example of an issue in the LMH referral process.
`Plaintiff's medical records were prominently displayed, with her name, treating physician, and
`diagnosis. There were no redactions or attempts to protect Plaintiff's identity or private information
`evident in the email.
`
`17. Shortly after the email had been sent and before Plaintiff had even had a chance to see
`the message, Defendant Pedersen approached Plaintiff in an open corridor in front of patients and
`coworkers. Defendant Pedersen attempted to discuss the revelation of Plaintiff's medical records on the
`spot, out in the open, in front of other patients and coworkers. Plaintiff perceived the attempt at an
`indiscreet confrontation as a disingenuous apology aimed at escalating, rather than mitigating, the
`circumstances, and promptly attempted to terminate the discussion so it could be addressed in private.
`
`18. To the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, Defendant LMH's staff attempted to recall the
`email through technological means two days after it was sent, but the message remained accessible from
`staff computers and accounts for several more days after that.
`
`19. Based on Plaintiff's knowledge of Defendant LMH's email system from years of
`working there, Plaintiff believes that her private medical information was distributed to over 100
`people, including many, if not all, of her close coworkers with whom she has frequent contact.
`
`20. Plaintiff's private medical information that was revealed is of a particularly sensitive
`and embarrassing nature.
`
`21. Plaintiff has become aware of specific conversations by coworkers about her condition
`after the email revealed her private information to numerous individuals.
`
`22. Plaintiff has been humiliated, is embarrassed, and has suffered from extreme anxiety as
`a result of the disclosure of her private information
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`23. Plaintiff attempted to speak with officials from Defendant LMH about the harm
`caused by this situation. Other than the ineffective attempt to recall the email, Plaintiff has witnessed
`no action on behalf of any Defendants to mitigate the harm caused to Plaintiff.
`
`Connt I - Breach of Confidentiality
`
`24. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-23 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`25. All Defendants in this action owed a duty of confidentiality to Plaintiff under the
`Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part
`164.
`
`26. Defendants LMH and Conklin owed a duty of confidentiality to Plaintiff under
`Kansas medical licensure laws.
`
`27. All Defendants in this action owed a duty of confidentiality to Plaintiff under common
`law principles of trust.
`
`28. Defendant Conklin owed a duty of confidentiality to Plaintiff under the Hippocratic
`Oath required of all medical practitioners in Kansas.
`
`29. The duties owed by principals extend to their agents under the law of agency.
`
`30. One or more of Defendants LMH, Conklin, Austin, Soetaert, and Pedersen, directly
`or by acts of their agents, breached the duties of confidentiality owed to Plaintiff by revealing her
`private medical information broadly to numerous individuals with no legitimate or legal right to that
`private medical information.
`
`31. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm to her rights of privacy as a result of the
`aforementioned breach of confidentiality.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`32. One or more of Defendants LMH, Conklin, Austin, Soetaert, and Pedersen, directly
`or by acts of their agents, caused the injury to Plaintiff's rights of privacy.
`
`33. Plaintiff in no way contributed to the injury described in this count.
`
`34. Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of damages for her injury described in this
`
`count.
`
`Count II - Intrusion on Seclusion
`
`35. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-23 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`36. One or both of Defendants LMH and Pedersen, directly or by acts of their agents,
`intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiff's private affairs or concerns, to wit: accessing her
`private medical records without authorization or legitimate business interest in the manner of access.
`
`37. The intrusion into Plaintiff's private affairs or concerns would be highly offensive to a
`reasonable person.
`
`38. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm to her right of privacy as a result of the acts of
`one or both of Defendants LMH and Pedersen, directly or by acts of their agents, through the
`aforementioned intrusion on seclusion of Plaintiff's private affairs or concerns.
`
`39. Plaintiff in no way contributed to the injury described in this count.
`
`40. Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of damages for her injury described in this
`
`count.
`
`Count III - Publicity to Private Facts
`
`41. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-23 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`42. One or both of Defendan儒 LMH and Pedersen, directly or by acts of their agents, gave
`publicity to one or more private facts concerning the private life of Plaintiff, and that such publicity of
`the revealed fact would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and that such publicity of the
`revealed fact is not of legitimate concern to the public.
`43. For the purposes of this count, Plaintiff alleges that dissemination of her private
`medical information to over 100 individuals with no legitimate interest is broad enough to ensure that
`it would become common knowledge within the community in which Plaintiff is employed.
`
`44. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm to her right of privacy as a result of the acts of
`one or both of Defendants LMH and Pedersen, directly or by acts of their agents, through the
`aforementioned publicity given to Plaintiff's private facts.
`45. Plaintiff in no way contributed to the injury described in this count.
`
`46. Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of damages for her injury described in this
`
`count.
`
` Infliction of Emotioiial Distress
`Count B Intentional儒Intentional
`
`47. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-23 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`48. One or both of Defendants LMH and Pedersen, directly or by acts of their agen ,儒,
`intentionally or recklessly, and in an extreme and outrageous manner, caused Plaintiff to suffer severe
`emotional distress by humiliating and embarrassing Plaintiff within her workplace community
`through the broad revelation of sensitive private medical information.
`
`49. Plaintiff in no way contributed to the injury described in this count.
`
`50. Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of damages for her injury described in this
`
`count.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`Count V - Retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act
`
`51. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-23 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`52. Plaintiff engaged in the statutorily protected activity of using FMLA leave for a
`documented medical condition.
`
`53. One or more of Defendants LMH, Pedersen, Austin, and Soetaert, directly or by acts
`of their agents, took a materially adverse job action in creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiff
`by broadly revealing humiliating and embarrassing private medical information to Plaintiff's
`coworkers.
`
`54. One or more of Defendants LMH, Pedersen, Austin, and Soetaert, directly or by acts
`of their agents, created a hostile work environment in retaliation for Plaintiff engaging in the protected
`activity.
`
`55. Plaintiff alleges that the close temporal proximity of the protected action, adverse
`positions taken by Defendants regarding the protected action, and the subsequent adverse job action
`provides no less than circumstantial evidence of a causal connection between the protected action and
`the adverse action.
`
`56. Plaintiff in no way contributed to the injury described in this count.
`
`57. Plaintiff is entitled to relief in the form of attorney fees and costs associated with the
`injury described in this count.
`
`Count VI- Temporary Restraining Order Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-903
`
`58. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-57 in this count as if stated and alleged herein, in
`accordance with K.S.A. 60-120(c).
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 10 of 11
`
`59. K.S.A. 60-901 et seq. permits this Court to issue injunctions, including provisional
`remedies and temporary restraining orders, when certain conditions are met.
`
`60. Plaintiff alleges by this verified pleading that if any of the Defendants, directly or
`through the actions of their agents, further disseminate Plaintiff's confidential medical information,
`then Plaintiff will suffer additional immediate and irreparable violations of her privacy rights described
`in this cause of action. Such dissemination may occur if Defendants include such information in
`responsive pleadings or other litigation documents.
`
`61. Plaintiff's counsel certifies that attempts to communicate with Defendants regarding
`this matter, whether directly or through counsel, have been unsuccessful. Counsel has received one
`letter from Defendant LMH's counsel which addressed nothing of substance in this claim. All other
`attempts at contact have received no response.
`
`62. Because of the injury which Plaintiff could suffer from further revelation of her private
`information in responsive pleadings and other public court filings, Plaintiff requests a temporary
`restraining order which prohibits Defendants and their agents from disseminating Plaintiff's private
`information and requiring any pleadings or court filings containing Plaintiffs private information to be
`filed under seal. A copy of the proposed Temporary Restraining Order is attached hereto.
`
`63. Plaintiff has filed a proposed Temporary Restraining Order contemporaneously with
`this Petition, and will serve the same on Defendants and the Lawrence City Clerk along with the
`summons and Petition upon issuance of the order by the Court.
`
`64. Plaintiff further requests that this Court promptly set an expedited hearing pursuant
`to K.S.A. 60-903(c) to address the subject matter of the Temporary Restraining Order.
`
`65. Plaintiff believes that the requested Temporary Restraining Order requires no security
`as contemplated by K.S.A. 60-903(0.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02111-EFM-GEB Document 1-1 Filed 03/23/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`Demand for jury Trial
`
`66. Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this matter.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for this Court to issue a Temporary Restraining
`Order, enter judgment against the Defendant in an amount in excess of $75,000 for damages, pain and
`suffering, attorney expenses and fees if allowed by law, interest at the maximum legal rate, and for such
`other further action this Court deems just and reasonable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Is/Bradley Hook
`Bradley Hook, KS #27952
`Hook Law Office Chartered
`2029 Becker Drive
`Lawrence, Kansas 66047
`(913) 717-0000 (voice)
`(913) 416-9013 (fax)
`firmAhook.law
`
`VERIFICATION OF PETITION
`
`State of Kansas
`
`County of Douglas
`I swear or affirm that I am the Petitioner, Dawn Link, that the statements made in this Petition
`are true to the best of my knowledge, and that I have directed the above-named attorney to file this
`Petition on my behalf.
`
`n Jr) \1/4.6NO
`Signature of Petitioner
`
`SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, this day of
` ,20 'LL2 .
`
`LYN JAI MEZ
`Notary Public-State of, Kap.;
`My Appt. Expires 02 I ( I iZ
`
`