Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL ACTIONNO.
`
`BERKSHIRE, ss.
`
`
`
`KATHLEEN M. SHERIDAN, M_.D.,
`
`Complainant
`
`v.
`
`BERKSHIRE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`BERKSHIRE FACULTY
`SERVICES, INC., and BERKSHIRE
`MEDICAL CENTER,INC.
`
`Respondents
`Nene”
`
`ee
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This action arises from Dr. Kathleen Sheridan’s (““Dr. Sheridan”) employment with and
`
`separation from Berkshire Faculty Services, Inc. (“BFS”). Dr. Sheridan is a skilled and
`
`experienced obstetrician-gynecologist (“OB-GYN”) who wasassigned to work in the Maternal
`
`and Child Health department at Berkshire Medical Center (“BMC”). Dr. Sheridan performed an
`
`emergency C-section on a patient, whose newborntragically died several days later (hereinafter
`
`referred to as the “Fatality Incident’), through no fault of Dr. Sheridan’s. The Fatality Incident
`
`wasa result of, inter alia, the negligent understaffing of the BMC (where no anesthesiologist
`
`was in house and where a quick C-section was impaired by lack of preparedness within the
`
`facility); a labor nurse’s erroneousreport to Dr. Sheridan of a patient’s fetal monitoring status;
`
`and BFS’s failure to properly train labor nurses in patient monitoring, despite Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`urging. To cover up its gross negligence, BFS inappropriately, misleadingly, and disingenuously
`
`
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`CIVIL ACTIONNO.
`
`BERKSHIRE, ss.
`
`
`
`KATHLEEN M. SHERIDAN, M_.D.,
`
`Complainant
`
`v.
`
`BERKSHIRE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`BERKSHIRE FACULTY
`SERVICES, INC., and BERKSHIRE
`MEDICAL CENTER,INC.
`
`Respondents
`Nene”
`
`ee
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This action arises from Dr. Kathleen Sheridan’s (““Dr. Sheridan”) employment with and
`
`separation from Berkshire Faculty Services, Inc. (“BFS”). Dr. Sheridan is a skilled and
`
`experienced obstetrician-gynecologist (“OB-GYN”) who wasassigned to work in the Maternal
`
`and Child Health department at Berkshire Medical Center (“BMC”). Dr. Sheridan performed an
`
`emergency C-section on a patient, whose newborntragically died several days later (hereinafter
`
`referred to as the “Fatality Incident’), through no fault of Dr. Sheridan’s. The Fatality Incident
`
`wasa result of, inter alia, the negligent understaffing of the BMC (where no anesthesiologist
`
`was in house and where a quick C-section was impaired by lack of preparedness within the
`
`facility); a labor nurse’s erroneousreport to Dr. Sheridan of a patient’s fetal monitoring status;
`
`and BFS’s failure to properly train labor nurses in patient monitoring, despite Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`urging. To cover up its gross negligence, BFS inappropriately, misleadingly, and disingenuously
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`capitalized on the Fatality Incident to summarily suspend Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges, to
`
`subject her to a numberof bad-faith investigations, and ultimately to terminate her employment.
`
`This negligence not only resulted in the tragic death of the newborn, but had the potential to
`
`negatively impact the entire community that BFS serves.
`
`BFS’s failure to follow appropriate protocols wasnot limited to its care of pregnant
`
`womenandtheir babies, but also extended to ignoring the U.S. Center for Disease Control’s
`
`(“CDC”) guidelines related to COVID-19. Dr. Sheridan reported BMC’s failure to follow CDC
`
`COVID-19 guidelines, and shortly thereafter her employment was terminated on the pretext of
`
`the Fatality Incident, without even a meaningful investigation. As will be further detailed below,
`
`the suspension of Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges, the ensuing external peer review, her
`
`subsequent termination, the internal peer reviews, the investigation by the ad hoc committee, and
`
`the ultimate reversal of her suspension of privileges by the Medical Executive Committee
`
`(“MEC”) after nine months of internal and external peer reviews, were fraught with irregularities
`
`and bad faith. The facts illustrate that BFS, BMC and Berkshire Health Systems (“BHS”),
`
`through their agents, intentionally put Dr. Sheridan through a flawed review process to cover up
`
`their own disregard for patient safety and to retaliate against Dr. Sheridan for reporting that BMC
`
`and other BFS facilities were not in compliance with CDC COVID-19 guidelines. The flawed
`
`review process, the retaliatory termination of Dr. Sheridan’s employment, and the undue scrutiny
`
`levied on Dr. Sheridan as a result of Defendants’ conduct have impaired Dr. Sheridan’s career
`
`and livelihood.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Kathleen Sheridan, M.D., is an individual whoresides in Cummington,
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, Berkshire Health Systems, Inc. is a tax-exempt charitable organization
`
`with a principal place of business at 725 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201. Berkshire Health
`
`Systems (“BHS”) controls affiliated hospitals, including Berkshire Medical Center and Fairview
`
`Hospital, and is also the parent organization of Berkshire Faculty Services.
`
`3,
`
`Defendant, Berkshire Faculty Services, Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation with a
`
`principal place of business at 725 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201. Defendant Berkshire
`
`Faculty Services (“BFS”) is a faculty practice organization, supporting the medical education
`
`and medical service activities of Berkshire Medical Center Inc.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant, Berkshire Medical Center, Inc. (“BMC”) is a Massachusetts
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 725 North Street, Pittsfield, MA 01201.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 212, § 3, this Court has jurisdiction over this action, as
`
`damages are expected to exceed $50,000.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is appropriate in Berkshire County pursuant M.G.L. c. 223, § 1 because(a)
`
`the actions and omissions underlying Plaintiff's claims took place in Berkshire County and (b)
`
`the parties have acknowledged byprior written agreement that Berkshire County is the
`
`appropriate venue for claimsarising out of Dr. Sheridan’s claims.
`
`FACTS
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Sheridan is an accomplished obstetrician-gynecologist with more than twenty
`
`(20) years of professional experience. To highlight only a few of Dr. Sheridan’s many
`
`professional accomplishments; she was appointed to the board of the Berkshire Fallon Health
`
`Collaborative in 2021 as the representative of the OB-GYN service line. Dr. Sheridan has also
`
`been actively involved in advocating for the treatment of pregnant women with opioid use
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`disorders, and was the Medical Director of a $300,000 grant approved by the Massachusetts
`
`Health Policy Commission to Berkshire Medical Center for the Cost-Effective, Coordinated Care
`
`for Caregivers and Substance Exposed Newborns investment program.
`
`8.
`
`In February of 2017, Dr. Sheridan was hired by Berkshire Faculty Services, Inc.
`
`as a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, to work in the Maternal and Child
`
`Health department of Berkshire Medical Center.
`
`9.
`
`Accordingly, on February 18, 2017, Dr. Sheridan executed a Physician
`
`Employment Agreement with BFS (the “Agreement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`10.=‘In pertinent part, the Agreement required that 180 days’ notice be given in the
`
`event BFS chose to terminate Dr. Sheridan without cause.
`
`11.|During her employment with BFS, Dr. Sheridan wasneversubjected to a formal
`
`practice evaluation, whichis a typical step taken when the hospital has concerns about a
`
`clinician.
`
`12.
`
`Dr. Sheridanis highly skilled and educatedin interpreting fetal tracing, and had
`
`previously received advancedtraining in the interpretation of fetal monitoring during continuing
`
`education courses taught by pre-eminent experts on this topic.
`
`13.
`
`As such, shortly after being hired by BFS, Dr. Sheridan spoke with the nursing
`
`director of the Mother Baby Unit at BMC, Melissa Canata, R.N., and offered to provide the
`
`nurses with training on fetal heart monitoring.
`
`14.—_In response, the nursing director informed Dr. Sheridan that the nurses were well
`
`trained, and explained that they did not offer any didactic training on-site to nurses.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`15.
`
`As Dr. Sheridan was recognized as a skilled and experienced physician, on or
`
`about January 21, 2021 she was appointed by Dr. Lauren Slater, the department chair, as Vice
`
`Chair of BMC’s OB-GYNdepartment.
`
`The Fatality Incident
`
`16.
`
`On July 26, 2021, Dr. Sheridan performed an unplanned, medically necessary,
`
`emergency C-section on a patient that resulted in the birth of an anoxic newborn, resuscitation,
`
`and ultimately the death of the newbornfive daysafter birth.
`
`17.
`
`The Fatality Incident triggered a series of events as described in further detail
`
`infra, including the summary suspension of Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges, an outside review
`
`of the Fatality Incident, the termination of her employment by BFS, an internal peer review, an
`
`investigation by an ad hoc committee, and corrective action by the MEC.
`
`18.
`
`The Fatality Incident commencedon July 26, 2021, when a pregnantpatient
`
`presented to BMC, as she was experiencing contractions. This patient had previously been
`
`scheduled for induction of labor on July 27, 2021. Upon presentation, the patient was placed on
`
`an external fetal monitor at approximately 6:00 p.m.
`
`19.
`
`The patient was evaluated by the Certified Nurse Midwife (“CNM”) on duty. The
`
`CNMevaluated the patient and identified the patient’s fetal heart tracing (“FHT”) as a category
`
`2. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Dr. Sheridan wascalled by the CNM to review thetracing.
`
`20.
`
`Dr. Sheridan and the CNM then madethe plan to admit the patient and takeinitial
`
`measures to resolve the category 2 FHT, and at approximately 8 p.m., the FHT was documented
`
`as a category | for the first time; being the expected result of the treatment planned and provided
`
`by Dr. Sheridan and the CNM.The decision was made to continue with the previously
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`established plan to induce labor the following morning, on July 27, 2021. Around 8 p.m. on July
`
`26, 2021, the CNM’s work shift ended, and care of the patient was transferred to Dr. Sheridan.
`
`21.|Upon knowledgeand belief, as well as Dr. Sheridan’s expertise on this topic,
`
`FHT’s arestatistically likely to improve; however, a persistent category 2 FHT tracing could
`
`require that a cesarean delivery be performed. As such, a plan wasput in place to observe for
`
`improvementin the patient’s FHT’s.
`
`22.
`
`During this time, Dr. Sheridan was involvedin a variety of tasks including taking
`
`patient calls and evaluating new patients.
`
`23.
`
`Asis commonpractice in the field, Dr. Sheridan was relying on the labor nurse to
`
`observe the patient andto alert her to any observations that could indicate potential issues with
`
`the pregnancy.Particularly relevant to the current matter, Dr. Sheridan wasrelying on the labor
`
`nurse to monitor and interpret FHTsandto alert her if the category 2 tracing persisted.
`
`24.
`
`During a discussion between Dr. Sheridan and the labor nurse during dinner
`
`break, the labor nurse reported that the patient’s FHT’s were normal. This was consistent with
`
`the nurses charting in the patient’s medical record.
`
`25.
`
`The report by the labor nurse constituted a fundamentalerror in that she
`
`incorrectly reported to Dr. Sheridan that the patient’s FHT’s were at a category 1 level, instead of
`
`a category 2 level; the latter would have resulted in further follow-up by Dr. Sheridan.
`
`26.
`
`Accordingly, it was only later discovered that the FHT did indicate problems with
`
`the pregnancy suchthat an unscheduled C-section needed to be performed. The necessity to
`
`deliver the baby on an emergency basis wasfirst realized later in the evening, around 9:30 p.m.,
`
`while Dr. Sheridan wasstanding at the nursing station and observed that the patient had
`
`undergone a terminal bradycardia event.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`27.
`
`Asaresult, Dr. Sheridan immediately performed a cervical exam and began to
`
`prepare to perform an emergency C-section. At the time, there was no anesthesiologist or
`
`emergency operating room team in house at BMC. Thus, Dr. Sheridan had no choice but to
`
`prepare to perform an unassisted C-section initially, and to prepare the patient using local
`
`anesthesia.
`
`28.
`
`Later, at approximately 9:58 p.m., the anesthesiologist arrived and placed the
`
`patient under general anesthesia. The C-section was performedat approximately 10:00 p.m., and
`
`the baby wasdelivered and subsequently transferred to Baystate Medical Center. Five daysafter
`
`birth, the newborn tragically passed.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, and counter to standard protocol for BMC and
`
`hospitals nationwide, no staff debrief was held in the immediate aftermath of the Fatality
`
`Incident. Rather, a meeting was held days later during which the blame for the Fatality Incident
`
`was immediately put on Dr. Sheridan, in violation of hospital protocol and before any actual
`
`investigation had taken place.
`
`30.
`
`Ofnote, and as will be further highlighted infra, there were a variety of factors
`
`that contributed to the Fatality Incident and that are completely independent of Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`actions, to wit:
`
`(a) There was no emergency operating team on staff during the hours of 5 p.m.-
`
`11 p.m. (the period during which the emergency C-Section occurred, and the
`
`time frame widely considered to comprise the highest volume of emergency
`
`surgeries nationally);
`
`(b) There was no anesthesiologist in the hospital at the time of the incident;
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`(c) The nurses at BMC werenotproperly trained to interpret FHT’s (despite Dr.
`
`Sheridan’s urging), and
`
`(d) There wasno effective system for alerting emergency operating room staff to
`
`report to BMCin the case of a potential emergency.
`
`31.
`
`The lack of an effective alert system increased the time frame from “decision to
`
`incision,” i.e. the critical time between the determination that a C-section is required and the time
`
`it is actually performed.
`
`32.
`
`Despite these institutional deficiencies, amongst others, Dr. Sheridan has suffered
`
`the brunt of the blamefor the Fatality Incident.
`
`The Flawed Investigations and Review Process
`
`33.
`
`On or about August 3, 2021, Dr. Sheridan received a letter from Michael
`
`McInerney (“Dr. McInerney”), the Chief of Staff for BMC, informingherthat herclinical
`
`privileges at BMCandall associated clinics were being summarily suspended effective
`
`immediately, pending the outcome of an investigation into the Fatality Incident. That letter is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`34.
`
`For contextual purposes, summary suspensionsofclinical privileges are normally
`
`undertaken only in extreme situations, and rarely in responseto a single event.
`
`35.
`
`Indeed, summary suspensionis a drastic measure taken very rarely a result of a
`
`single incident, but is instead usually instituted as a precautionary response that takes into
`
`consideration the longitudinal performance of a clinician in determining whethera clinician is an
`
`immediate dangerto their patients.
`
`36.|Yet upon information and belief, Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges were
`
`summarily suspended inappropriately based almost entirely on the Fatality Incident.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`37.
`
`To furtherillustrate the inappropriateness of this action, during Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`long tenure with BMC, she has undergone numerous performanceevaluations that generally
`
`concluded she was performing adequately, and that otherwise did not indicate that there were
`
`any significant issues with her practice as an OB-GYN orin herotherroles.
`
`38.
`
` Assuch, there was no indication that Dr. Sheridan was not performing her duties
`
`adequately.
`
`39.
`
`Indeed, upon information andbelief, there is no data to suggest that Dr. Sheridan
`
`had overseen a disproportionate numberof adverse outcomes comparedto her colleagues at
`
`BMC.
`
`40.
`
`Similarly, there is no data to suggest that Dr. Sheridan wasan outlier in respect to
`
`the average number of C-Sections she performed comparedto her colleaguesat the time of the
`
`Fatality Incident.
`
`41.
`
`The typical industry standard in terms of reviewing disciplinary action such as
`
`summary suspensionis that such reviews are to be conducted bythe peers of the individual being
`
`disciplined, as they are best situated to report on that individual’s capabilities, strengths, and
`
`weaknesses.
`
`42.
`
`In early August of 2021, Dr. Sheridan’s colleagues met with Dr. Lederer and Dr.
`
`McInerney and expressed their disagreement with the decision to summarily suspend Dr.
`
`Sheridan’s privileges.
`
`43,
`
`On or about August 12, 2021, a letter was written to Dr. Lederer and Dr.
`
`McInerney by Dr. Benner, on behalf of Dr. Sheridan’s colleagues, expressing their concern over
`
`the summarysuspension of Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges.
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`44,
`
`On August 13, 2021, as recorded in a voicemail to Dr. Sheridan, Dr. Lederer
`
`stated that a report of the incident wasfirst being sent to an external peer review company for
`
`evaluation.
`
`45.
`
` Assuch,the first investigative measure taken as a result of the Fatality Incident
`
`wasin the form of an external review performed by Dr. Erin Huffman, an outside OB-GYN,on
`
`or about August 16, 2021.
`
`46.|Upon information and belief, Dr. Huffman was only provided with Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`notes and the fetal tracing data; she was not provided with any nursing documentation related to
`
`the Fatality Incident for review. Furthermore, Dr. Huffman did not attempt to speak with Dr.
`
`Sheridan aboutthe Fatality Incident.
`
`47.
`
`Ofnote, there is no guidance or standard in the BMC’s Medical Staff By-Laws
`
`that addresses external reviewsin the context of a summary suspensionofprivileges or
`
`otherwise.
`
`48.|BMCseized on this unnecessary, insubstantial, and faulty outside review to serve
`
`as a basis for the decision made by Dr. McInerney, Dr. Lederer, and Dr. Slater, to continue the
`
`summary suspension of Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges.
`
`49.
`
`Shockingly, on or about September 3, 2021, after the external review and before
`
`any formal peer review process was conductedinto the Fatality Incident, Dr. Sheridan received a
`
`letter, from Dr. Lederer, informing her that her employment with BFS was terminated, effective
`
`immediately. That letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`50.
`
`Dr. Lederer’s terminationletteris rife with egregious and unfoundedallegations,
`
`insinuations, and unwarranted and unprofessional statements. Perhaps most offensively, in the
`
`letter Dr. Lederer appears to hold Dr. Sheridan solely responsible for two (2) neonatal deaths that
`
`10
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`presumably occurred under her supervision. Without providing any additional foundation for
`
`these serious allegations, Dr. Lederer stated that these deaths “raise questions about[Dr.
`
`Sheridan’s] professional judgment and episodes of concern among [her] clinical colleagues that
`
`prompt similar questions.”
`
`51.
`
`In this termination letter, Dr. Lederer goes on to accuse Dr. Sheridan offailing to
`
`work well with her colleagues, failing to adhere to good clinical practices, and generally
`
`constituting a seriousrisk to patient safety and well-being. Astoundingly, although Dr.
`
`Sheridan’s termination was being categorized as not-for-cause, Dr. Lederer informed Dr.
`
`Sheridan that BFS was not adhering to Section 2.1 of the Agreement, which would require BFS
`
`to give 180 days’ notice ofits intent to terminate the relationship on a not-for-cause basis;
`
`instead, he stated, “BFS has concluded, however,that patient safety and clinical team
`
`collaboration require that your employment by BFS end immediately” (emphasis added).
`
`52.|Upon information and belief, Dr. Lederer terminated Dr. Sheridan prior to
`
`conducting an internal peer process and without following applicable procedures pertaining to
`
`corrective actions as set forth in Article VI of the Medical Staff By-Laws. Berkshire Medical
`
`Center’s Medical Staff By-Lawsare attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`53.|Upon information andbelief, there is no documentation to substantiate any of the
`
`reasons cited for terminating Dr. Sheridan: that her clinical colleagues had concerns about her
`
`professional judgment; that she was failing to work well with her colleagues; that she wasfailing
`
`to adhere to goodclinical practice; and that she otherwise constituted a serious risk to patient
`
`safety and well-being.
`
`54.
`
`Rather, as is discussed throughout this Complaint, the available evidence appears
`
`to contradict every stated reason for BMC’s decision.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`55.
`
`Dr. Sheridan was both respected andtrusted by her colleagues, as evidenced by
`
`their support following both her promotion to vice chair of the OB-GYN department and the
`
`subsequent summary suspensionofher privileges. She was never subject to a formal practice
`
`evaluation as a result of her “failing to adhere to goodclinical privileges,” and in fact,all of her
`
`standard clinical reviews indicated she was performing adequately. She wasnota risk to patient
`
`safety and well-being; objectively, the number of adverse outcomes underher supervision was
`
`statistically in-line with those of her colleagues, and in some instances, lower than those of the
`
`individuals tasked with reviewing her.
`
`56.
`
`After issuance of the outside review of the incident and after Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`employment with BHS had been formally terminated, peer review meetings were conducted to
`
`review the incident. As will be further detailed infra, Dr. Lederer was allowed to participate in
`
`the internal review process despite Dr. Sheridan’s realistic concerns, as noted to Attorney
`
`Rogers, that Dr. Lederer may have a negative bias towardsher that would contaminate the peer
`
`review process.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information andbelief, no obstetricians participated in BMC’s peer review
`
`committee considering the Fatality Incident.
`
`58.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Sheridan was not provided an opportunity to speak with the
`
`internal peer review committee to discuss the Fatality Incident until on or about October 28,
`
`2021.
`
`59.
`
`On or about November2, 2021, a meeting of the MEC washeld to hear Dr.
`
`Sheridan’s appeal of her initial summary suspension. After that meeting, the MEC voted to
`
`proceed with considering Dr. Sheridan’s continued medicalstaff privileges and the possibility of
`
`12
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`corrective action, thereby rejecting Dr. Sheridan’s request to revoke the summary suspension of
`
`her privileges.
`
`60.
`
`Asaresult of the MEC’s decision to proceed with consideration of corrective
`
`action, an ad hoc committee was formed on or about December8, 2021, to generally further
`
`investigate the incident and to make recommendationsas to any necessary corrective action.
`
`61.
`
`In a letter from John Loiodice, M.D., Chief of Staff for BMC, Dr. Sheridan was
`
`informedthat the ad hoc committee had concluded their investigation and that the MEC voted on
`
`May2, 2022, to end the summary suspensionofherclinical privileges, effective that same day.
`
`62.|However, the ending of the suspension of Dr. Sheridan’s clinical privileges came
`
`with a caveat put in place by the MEC should she choose to renew her hospital privileges at
`
`BMC. The decision outlined a “Plan for the Future” that Dr. Sheridan must commit to should she
`
`elect to exercise her clinical privileges at BMC. A copyofthe letter received from John Loiodice
`
`that includes the details of the Committee’s decision and the “Plan for the Future” is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`63.
`
`The “Plan for the Future” was to include, at a minimum and at Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`expense, the oversight by a board-certified OB-GYN of: (a) all OB-GYN cases for which
`
`patients select her for their care and (b) the completion,to the satisfaction of the Medical
`
`Executive Committee, of a course of training by the Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric
`
`and Neonatal Nurses (“AWHONN”) alliance related to management of womenin labor.
`
`64.|Uponinformation andbelief, the recommendation that Dr. Sheridan participate in
`
`a “Plan for the Future” resulted largely from remarks made by Dr. Slater and Dr. Kantor
`
`regarding herskills and decision-making, which she was provided no opportunity to refute.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`Whistleblowing
`
`65.
`
`In March of 2021, BHSreceived over $5 million in federal funds in response to
`
`the COVID-19 pandemic. Uponinformation andbelief, parts of these federal funds were to be
`
`allocated to operate a COVID-19 call center to serve all of Berkshire County, where BMCis
`
`located.
`
`66.
`
`Of note, BFS is the only health system organization in Berkshire County and
`
`therefore plays a significant public health role for all of Berkshire County.
`
`67.
`
`In July of 2021, the director of the CDC held a press conference that highlighted
`
`the new CDC guidelines with respect to COVID-19. In particular, the CDC updatedtheir
`
`guidelines to state that those who had received a COVID-19 vaccine should be tested if they had
`
`been exposed to someone with COVID; whereaspreviously the CDC had recommendedthat
`
`vaccinated individuals should get tested only if they developed symptoms.
`
`68.|Upon information and belief, Dr. Lederer wasin part tasked with implementing
`
`the new CDCguidelinesas they pertained to the COVIDcall center/hotline, and otherwise for
`
`Berkshire County.
`
`69.
`
`On or about August 26, 2021, while investigations into the Fatality Incident were
`
`ongoing and herclinical privileges remained suspended, Dr. Sheridan sent an email to Dr.
`
`Lederer, in which she, accurately and in good faith, reported that the COVIDhotline that covered
`
`all of Berkshire County wasnot in compliance with the new CDC guidelines.
`
`70.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Sheridan had been exposed to COVID-19 on or about August 24,
`
`2021, but was refused when she contacted Berkshire County’s COVIDhotline in orderto
`
`arrange to be tested.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`71.
`
`Upon information and belief, BHSfailed to implement CDC guidelines until
`
`approximately four (4) weeks after they had been issued, and only after Dr. Sheridan reported the
`
`issue to Dr. Lederer.
`
`72.
`
`By the time the new recommendations were implemented, Berkshire County had
`
`gone from having among the lowest rates of COVIDcasesin the state, to having one of the
`
`highest rates of COVID infections in Massachusetts.
`
`73.
`
`Dr. Sheridan was aware that Dr. Lederer had made appearancesin front of
`
`membersof the United States Congress to discuss the COVID pandemic, and that upon
`
`information and belief, these appearances had played a role in the federal grant being awarded to
`
`BHS. Truly. Dr. Lederer was both the hospital spokesperson for and considered to be a local
`
`community expert on the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`74.—Assuch, Dr. Sheridan had concerns that BHS’s non-compliance with current
`
`COVID-19 CDC guidelines as reported by her to Dr. Lederer would be a source of personal
`
`humiliation for him, and could result in other backlash against him. Dr. Sheridan choseto report
`
`the error to Dr. Lederer personally and confidentially as she believed that doing so was the best
`
`wayto ensure the hotline’s complianceerror, and the potential resulting harm to the community,
`
`would be promptly addressed.
`
`75.
`
`On September 3, 2021, approximately one week after Dr. Sheridan contacted Dr.
`
`Lederer to report the COVID-19 hotline’s noncompliance with CDC guidelines, she received a
`
`letter from Dr. Lederer terminating the Agreement and her employment with BFS.
`
`76.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dr. Lederer terminated Dr. Sheridan as a result of
`
`her reporting to him that BHS wasnot in compliance with CDC guidelines, and the termination
`
`15
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`wasunrelated to the unfounded reasonsthat were set forth in the termination letter as described
`
`supra.
`
`77.
`
`Given these concerns, Dr. Sheridan reached out to BMC’s attorney, John Rogers,
`
`to request that Dr. Lederer not be part of the peer reviewprocess as she feared he would be
`
`unable to serve as an unbiased evaluator. Not only were her concerns ignored, but she was
`
`accused by Attorney Rogers of making defamatory statements concerning Dr. Lederer.
`
`Aftermath and Continued Impact
`
`78.
`
`Asaresult of the Fatality Incident, members of the Quality and Patient Safety
`
`Committee for the Board of Registration in Medicine (“BORIM”) met with BMCon or about
`
`April 7, 2022, to learn more about BMC’s Patient Care Assessment program.
`
`79.
`
`Furtherillustrating BMC’s inadequacies, BORIM concluded that there had been a
`
`decrease in the reporting of Safety and Quality Review reports submitted by BMCto the Quality
`
`and Patient Safety Division.
`
`80.
`
`Additionally, in the wake of the Fatality Incident, BMC requiredall labor nurses,
`
`CNMsand MDsto take a course with AWHONN oninterpreting fetal monitoring.
`
`81.
`
`That BMCrequired this training following the Fatality Incident further indicated
`
`that BMC realized that their nurses had not been properly trained to interpret FHTs.
`
`Impact on Dr. Sheridan
`
`82.
`
`Understandably, given the unfair treatment and invasive investigative process Dr.
`
`Sheridan was put through following the Fatality Incident, Dr. Sheridan did not have an interest in
`
`returning to work for BMC.
`
`83.
`
`Furthermore, that Dr. Sheridan would have to comply with BMC’s “Plan for the
`
`Future” if she wanted to return to work at BMC only addedinsult to injury, as it becameclear
`
`16
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`that the Fatality Incident was not a result of her own professional errors, but rather representative
`
`of numerousdeficiencies in BMC’s protocols, staffing, and overall operation.
`
`84.
`
`Desiring to move on from BMCandcontinueher career in a new position, Dr.
`
`Sheridan began looking for new employment.
`
`85.|However, as a result of the numerousinvestigations into Dr. Sheridan’s
`
`involvementin the Fatality Incident, Dr. Sheridan has been unfairly hampered in her attempts to
`
`find gainful employment.
`
`86.
`
`Dr. Sheridan has experienced significant delays in board licensure and has
`
`otherwise been passed overas a candidate for roles she is well qualified to perform. Truly, had
`
`BHSoptedto retract the “Plan for the Future” language unjustifiably included in the letter
`
`terminating Dr. Sheridan’s summary suspension,her licensure and employment options would
`
`have improved dramatically.
`
`87.
`
`Furthermore, should Dr. Sheridan apply for a license to practice in anotherstate,
`
`she will have not only haveto disclose to the relevant medical board that she had herclinical
`
`privileges unjustly summarily suspended, but also that the MECbaselessly decided that she
`
`would be required to participate in a “Plan for the Future” should she want to renew herclinical
`
`privileges at BMC. Thechilling effect this has had on Dr. Sheridan’s ability to get licensed in
`
`other states should she choose to cannot be understated, and has effectually limited her to
`
`practicing in states where sheis already licensed; Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
`
`88.
`
`Uponinformation and belief, Dr. Sheridan has otherwise passed the interview
`
`processes for nine (9) different positions since leaving BMC, but was withdrawn from
`
`consideration after hiring manager’s followed up with BMCregarding Dr. Sheridan,or after
`
`17
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`credentialing leaders at their respective institutions informally advised against presenting her for
`
`credentialing.
`
`89.
`
`By way of example, Dr. Sheridan was offered a highly desirable position as
`
`Medical Director of Women’s Health at Davis Medical Center in Elkins, West Virginia. On
`
`February 3, 2022, Dr. Sheridan signed a contract for the position, which included a base salary of
`
`$364,440, a medical director fee of $50,000, and a recruitment incentive of $50,000.
`
`90.
`
`Dr. Sheridan was scheduled to begin her new position at Davis Medical Center on
`
`April 24, 2022. To prepare, she completed all of the insurance and hospital credential
`
`applications, and applied for a license in West Virginia.
`
`91.|However, during a meeting held on March 14, 2022, the West Virginia Board of
`
`Medicine decided to defer Dr. Sheridan’s application until they were able to receive and review
`
`the ad hoc committee report concerning the Fatality Incident.
`
`92.
`
`Although the ad hoc committee had completed their investigation, Dr. Sheridan
`
`had not yet been provided with the report, as the BFS bylawsstate that she would receiveit after
`
`the MECvote, such that she wasnot able to provide the report immediately to the West Virginia
`
`Board of Medicine.
`
`93.
`
`Due to the delay in acquiring the ad hoc committee report, and as the West
`
`Virginia Board of Medicine considers applications on a bi-monthly basis, the next such meeting
`
`was on May 14, 2022. In the interim, on or about April 25, 2022, Davis Medical Center made
`
`the decision to withdraw their offer of employment. Upon information andbelief, the Davis
`
`Medical Center hassincefilled that position.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Date Filed 5/9/2023 2:17 PM
`Superior Court - Berkshire
`Docket Number
`
`94.—_Additionally, Dr. Sheridan wasplanning to apply for a $100,000 student loan
`
`forgiveness program related to providing opioid treatment for pregnant womenif offered the
`
`position at Davis Medical Center.
`
`95.
`
`Ultimately Dr. Sheridan decided to withdraw her application for a license with the
`
`West Virginia Board of Medicine given the delays in receiving the required documentation from
`
`BM
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
