IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Transcription

1 :0: PM CV0 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH 1 ERIC FRANCK, M.D., an individual, v. Plaintiff, NORTHWEST PERMANENTE, P.C., a professional corporation, Defendant. Plaintiff Eric Franck, M.D., alleges as follows: Case No. COMPLAINT (Whistleblower Retaliation - ORS A.; ORS 1.0; ORS A.; Wrongful Termination; Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Contract; Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) Claim Amount: $,000, Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration 1. Plaintiff Eric Franck M.D. ("Plaintiff" or Dr. Franck ) worked for Defendant Northwest Permanente, P.C. as a physician employee practicing adult, pediatric and regional anesthesiology from June,, until August,. Dr. Franck is fellowship-trained and dual Board Certified in Anesthesiology. He has practiced as an anesthesiologist since.. At all relevant times, Dr. Franck resided in Multnomah County, State of Oregon.. Defendant Northwest Permanente, P.C. ( Defendant or "Kaiser") is an Oregon professional PAGE 1 -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

2 1 corporation created by and on behalf of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest ( Health Plan ) to be the named employer of the physicians who provide medical services for Health Plan patients at hospitals and clinics affiliated with Health Plan or owned and operated by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. Defendant also publically self-identifies as Northwest Permanente Physicians & Surgeons, P.C. Defendant is one of the Permanente Medical Groups and does business throughout Oregon, including Multnomah County.. At all relevant times, Defendant employed Dr. Franck, including paying his salary and providing his benefits, furnishing his equipment, and maintaining the right to control his working terms and conditions.. At all relevant times, Dr. Franck was an employee covered by ORS A.001 ().. At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of ORS A.001 () and ().. While employed by Kaiser, Dr. Franck treated adult and pediatric patients at the Kaiser Interstate Clinic in Portland, Oregon,( Interstate ), the Kaiser Westside Medical Center in Beaverton, Oregon,( WMC ), the Portland Clinic Surgery Center in Tigard, Oregon, ( PCS ), the Sunnybrook Ambulatory Surgery Center ( SAS ) and the Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center ( SMC ) in Clackamas, Oregon (collectively "Portland-area clinics").. Defendant employed Dr. Franck under a Physician Employment Contract executed by Dr. Franck on April, and by Kaiser on May,. The Physician Employment Contract was supplemented by an Addendum to Physician Employment Contract executed by Dr. Franck on June, and by Kaiser on June, (collectively the Contract ). PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

3 1. While employed by Kaiser, Dr. Franck had a high patient load, high productivity, and high patient satisfaction scores; and, he was an advocate for improving patient care and doing everything medically possible to help Kaiser patients under his care achieve excellent outcomes. Dr. Franck's work was routinely praised by his superiors, co-workers and patients. He had no adverse outcomes. His first year review was exemplary. He never received discipline.. As a condition of accepting employment with Kaiser and of leaving his then current employment, Dr. Franck obtained Kaiser's assurance through Carol Unitan, M.D., an anesthesiologist who is the current Chief Medical Officer of Kaiser Westside Medical Center and a member of the Kaiser committee tasked with hiring Dr. Franck, that he had job security. Dr. Franck was told by Dr. Unitan that the only anesthesiologist fired in the prior years had cancelled too many cases and refused to consult colleagues before doing so. Dr. Franck was assured that there would be no limitation from Kaiser on the treatment he would be able to provide his patients when in the best interest of the patients.. In July of, Greg Taylor, M.D., the Chief of Medical Staff and Director of the Sunnybrook Amulatory Surgery Center ( SAS ) asked Dr. Franck to show him and the Anesthesia Techs how Dr. Franck did nerve blocks for shoulder surgery. Dr. Franck demonstrated his technique as requested. He did not require an assistant for his nerve blocks and simplified the preparation process by placing a tagaderm, a transparent bandage, over the transducer instead of using the more laborious and expensive method of plastic sleeve and assistant. This innovation was resisted by Matt Weaver, the Lead Anesthesia Technician and a HealthPlan employee. Dr. Franck experienced resistance from Mr. Weaver throughout Dr. Franck s employment, including directing the anesthesia techs to hide, remove from the anesthesia cart and refuse to provide the tagaderms during the procedure. Kaiser ignored Dr. Franck s request that Mr. Weaver not be assigned to Dr. Franck s service. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

4 1 1. In August of, Dr. Franck became aware that Kaiser was decreasing the staffing levels at the Interstate Surgery Center. Dr. Franck advised Kaiser that this created a patient safety issue and that it was not prudent to supervise pediatric cases at a ratio less that 1:, especially with only one anesthesiologist on site. His concerns were ignored by Kaiser.. In September of, Dr. Franck advised Steve Renwick, M.D., Pediatric Orthopedist and President of the Board of Kaiser Permanente, that for patient safety, Dr. Franck would like to do more of his own pediatric cases in the operating rooms, rather than assigning those cases to Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists ( CRNA ).. During Dr. Franck s employment, a policy was adopted by Kaiser which required the anesthesiologists, CRNAs, nurses and staff to complete their pre-operative preparation and evaluations of surgical patients and have the patients in the operating rooms by :0 a.m. so surgical procedures could commence promptly at :0 a.m. If patients had complicated medical issues which required time consuming pre-surgical evaluation or if the patients had questions or concerns and requested further consultation, the anesthesiologists were encouraged to prioritize getting the patients to the operating rooms by :0 a.m. over patient safety and patient concerns.. Dr. Franck occasionally failed to have his patients to the operating rooms by :0 a.m. as he necessarily attended to a patient s medical needs or a patient s desire for more information prior to surgery. These delays were met with disapproval by Kaiser management. During an anesthesia department meeting, Clayton Horan, M.D., Chief of Anesthesia, emphasized the importance of meeting the :0 a.m. deadline by advising the anesthesia doctors and CRNAs to take the patient in with their street clothes on if you have to. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

5 1. As a result of the Kaiser policy which required that patients be in the OR and ready for surgery by :0 a.m. Jeff Weisz, M.D., Executive Medical Director, Kaiser Permanente, instructed Carol Unitan, M.D., Chief of Anesthesia at Kaiser s Westside Medical Center, that anesthesia was to begin placing spinal anesthetics in patients in the preop area before going to the operating room in order to improve the rate of patient turnover. In January of, Dr. Franck began to perform and supervise spinal anesthetics in the preop holding area at Kaiser Westside. After the spinal was administered, the patients were then transported to the operating rooms without monitors. Dr. Franck reported to Kaiser s management his concerns that these practices further compromised patient safety.. Kaiser provided CRNA s for many of the surgical procedures. The CRNAs were to function under the supervision of anesthesiologists such as Dr. Franck. Kaiser gave Dr. Franck an excessive number of CRNAs to supervise, thus also contributing to delays in transporting patients to the operating rooms as Dr. Franck would not release a patient for surgery until he had confirmed that the pre-surgical procedures had been followed and that it was safe for the patient to have surgery. This caused conflicts between Dr. Franck and a CRNA s who believed that his assessment of the patients was equal or superior to that of Dr. Franck and that Dr. Franck s oversight was unwarranted.. In November of, Dr. Franck advised Kaiser s management that he was concerned about patient safety as he had been assigned to supervise the care of four patients as the only physician anesthesiologist at Interstate, with some of those patients being children. Dr. Franck reported that he was uncomfortable with the current staffing model and that it was not the environment in which he would want his child to have surgery.. As the 1: anesthesiologist to patient practice continued, in January of, Dr. Franck again discussed this concern with Jessie Fan, M.D., Quality Improvement Lead for the Pediatric Anesthesia PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

6 1 Services. Dr. Fan reported Dr. Franck s concerns to Clayton Horan, M.D., Chief of Anesthesia, and Mark Moisan, Department of Anesthesia Administrator. In a January,, to Dr. Fan, Dr. Horan and Mr. Moisan, Dr. Franck reported that he was not comfortable with less than 1: supervision model in which one room is pediatrics. I would not want my child to have surgery under that anesthesia model; and I think it is especially problematic with one MD on site. In response, Mr. Mosian defended the economics of the 1: model used by Kaiser.. In May of, the Director of Obstetrics Anesthesia for SMC sent an which stated that Anesthesiologists are asked not to go into operating rooms during [cesarian sections] unless absolutely necessary. Dr. Franck responded in a widely distributed that it isn t safe to discourage anesthesiologists from going into their operating rooms. We supervised CRNA s and should feel free to go in as we feel need.. In June of, while Dr. Franck was on obstetrics service, a labor and delivery nurse prevented him from evaluating the patients, insisting that he rely on the nurse s assessment of the health of the patients and the risks of anesthesia. Dr. Franck advised Dr. Horan, Mr. Moisan and others in Kaiser s management that the nurse was interfering with his medical decision-making and care of the patient, conduct which raised an issue of patient safety.. In July of, Dr. Franck reported an event which raised an issue of patient safety to Dr. Unitan, Director of Anesthesia at WMC. Dr. Franck reported that a CRNA had tried to initiate a spinal on a patient in the preop but could not get it in by 0, so we went to OR quickly and re-did it there by rush to make the 00 on time, everytime. A pernicious rule.. Also in July of, Dr. Franck saw a patient with severe pulmonary hypertension who had been scheduled for elective outpatient surgery a hernia repair at Kaiser Westside Medical Center. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

7 1 The patient mistakenly had been cleared for surgery by another anesthesiologist. In the preop area, Dr. Franck evaluated the patient and determined that the surgical procedure would be dangerous for the patient until he had a cardiac work-up as recommended in his chart. Dr. Franck cancelled the elective surgical procedure. The patient was later seen by a cardiologist who recommended cardiac surgery before the hernia operation. Nevertheless, Dr. Franck was criticized for cancelling the surgery by Roxana Cooley, M.D., Director of the Sunnybrook Outpatient Surgery Center, because the patient had been cleared for surgery by a chart review process before Dr. Franck saw the patient. Dr. Franck was also derided in an sent by Katrin Book M.D., Lead Obstetrics Anesthesiologist. In response, Dr. Franck ed Dr. Cooley, Dr. Horan and Mr. Moisan and presented this issue as a patient safety concern as it was difficult for an anesthesiologist to do careful preoperative chart reviews while supervising other cases. Dr. Franck suggested that one anesthesiologist be designated to do the preoperative reviews. This suggestion was ignored by Kaiser.. In August of, the anesthesia department was directed by Dr. Cooley to return patients to the recovery room awake or easily awakened. The anesthesia staff was to avoid giving patients too much pain medication so they could not be quickly moved out of the recovery room. Dr. Franck was disturbed by the instructions that all providers will emphasize same message for the patients: You are going to have pain and nausea related to surgery and anesthesia. Patients are supposed to come to PACU... awake or easily awakened. Dr. Franck ed Dr. Cooley to suggest using a small amount of fentanyl to control their pain, to which Dr. Cooley responded and instructed that Dr. Franck could use only one-half of the amount he suggested.. On September,, the anesthesia department was advised that Regarding c-sections.... To help save time we are going to trial allowing Mom s support person to come back to the OR with Mom. Dr. Franck responded via I don t think it s a good idea to have a spouse or other loved one present for anesthetic induction in c-sections especially for high risk OB. Dr. Franck saw this PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

8 1 practice as creating an issue of patient safety. His concern was ignored by Kaiser.. On September,, Dr. Franck met with Clayton Horan, M.D., Chief of Anesthesia, who stated that there had been some complaints made regarding Dr. Franck. Dr. Horan advised Dr. Franck to keep his head down and that this would blow over and to contact Linda Miller from Human Resources to enroll in a communication course. Dr. Franck followed Dr. Horan s instructions and promptly enrolled in and completed a four session communication course offered by Kaiser. Dr. Franck was not given any other instructions nor was he advised that there was any further concerns regarding his communications or his performance.. On October,, Dr. Franck was assigned a heavy workload of eight cases, including six children. As he was preparing the patients for surgery, a CRNA with whom Dr. Franck had not previously worked arrived and told Dr. Franck that she was there to be proctored doing pediatric anesthesia. Because of the heavy workload and out of concern for patient safety, Dr. Franck declined to proctor the CRNA at that moment. In response, Dr. Fan sent an in which she suggested that Dr. Franck consider stepping back from the pediatric anesthesia delivery team. This was an inappropriate suggestion as Dr. Franck was the only board certified, fellowship trained pediatric anesthesiologist employed by Northwest Permanente P.C.. On October,, Dr. Franck was assigned to SAS where he supervised a CRNA for gastrointestinal ( GI ) procedures in addition to covering his general operating room CRNAs and performing nerve blocks for surgery. Two of the GI patients were very ill and required more time than expected. Because the GI physician was under pressure from Kaiser to quickly turn over cases, he complained about the slow turnover. The next day, Dr. Cooley entered a pediatric surgery operating room while Dr. Franck was doing a case for an infant who was in surgery. Dr. Cooley confronted Dr. Franck about why the turnovers took so long the preceding day, stating that it was unacceptable. Dr. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

9 Franck asked her to discuss this with him at a later time as he was concerned about the safety of his patient as he was distracted by the discussion.. In October of, Dr. Cooley ed the anesthesia department to advise them that the surgery start times at Sunnybrook had been slipping which directly affects the personal compensation of the Anesthesia team members... with ever-increasing frequency, we will be asked to move the rest of our patients as quickly as possible through the PACU. Dr. Cooley also directed the 1 anesthesiologists to not order Dilaudid for patients in the PACU except for chronic pain patients on Dilaudid at home. This statement reinforced Kaiser s earlier instructions to decrease the time in which patients were discharged from the PACU by not providing more than a minimum amount of short acting narcotic in the operating room and to not administer anti-anxiety medication unless absolutely necessary because it might prolong the patient s time in recovery. As a result of these policies, Dr. Franck became increasingly concerned that his pediatric patients were having their IVs pulled too soon after arrival in the recovery room while they were still crying with pain. Dr. Franck addressed his concerns about this policy with Matt Wilson, M.D., an ENT surgeon who regularly operated on pediatric patients. The ENT department was to discuss this matter in their next departmental meeting. 0. In January of, the full-time anesthesia tech at Interstate began an eight week leave. She was not replaced. The anesthesiologists and CRNAs were advised to restock the carts as they used supplies throughout the day as it may not get done otherwise. On January,, Dr. Franck ed the anesthesia department, Dr. Parsons and Mr. Moisan that a disaster is in the making if we don t get some (solid) anesthesia tech support in the INT facility pronto. Dr. Franck s concerns regarding patient safety were ignored by Kaiser. 1. In a February,, to Dr. Parsons, Dr. Horan and Mr. Moisan, Dr. Franck again reported that there continues to be no anesthesia tech support at Interstate. Like many days that I ve PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

10 1 been here, there is no tech at all present today. This continues to endanger patient safety in my opinion. Many others that work here feel the same. In response, two CRNA s sent s echoing Dr. Franck s concerns about patient safety as a result of the lack of anesthesia tech coverage at Interstate. Dr. Franck s concerns regarding patient safety were ignored by Kaiser.. On March,, the Anesthesia Department was sent an from Dr. Cooley and the Anesthesia Department leadership entitled Guidelines for Outpatient Anesthesia. In the Guidelines, Kaiser reaffirmed the policies about which Dr. Franck had previously expressed concerns for patient comfort and safety: i.e. anesthesia was advised to: a. administer the minimum amount of narcotic, preferably fentanyl; b. emerge patients from anesthesia in the OR as soon as possible, so that they arrive in PACU awake; and c. visit PACU as often as possible, and encourage the nurses to awaken and discharge the patients as soon as possible.. Dr. Franck reasonably believed that the policies, practices and demands of Kaiser were inconsistent with patient care and safety and with professional standards of care in that they: a. compelled Anesthesiologists to simultaneously care for an unreasonable number of patients and/or supervise too many CRNAs; b. required the rapid turnover of cases; c. insisted on :0 a.m. surgical start times; d. resulted in insufficient anesthesia techs and anesthesia supplies; e. supported the nurses who prevent the anesthesiologists from personally assessing the preoperative condition of patients; and f. required the minimal use of surgical and pre and post surgery pain and anxiety medications. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

11 1 Dr. Franck resisted those policies and expressed his concerns to Kaiser management that these policies, practices and demands compromised patient safety. In response, Dr. Franck was either ignored or instructed to comply with Kaiser s policies.. On April,, Dr. Franck was called into a meeting with Dr. Parsons, Dr. Horan, Mr. Moisan at which time Dr. Franck was advised that Defendant would not be renewing his Contract. Dr. Franck worked through August,, at which time his employment with Kaiser ended.. This Complaint has been timely filed. On April,, Defendant entered into a Tolling Agreement with Dr. Franck by which Defendant agreed that any statute of limitations, statute of ultimate repose, laches, or any other defense based on lapse of time, as a result of the April,, notification that Defendant would not be renewing his Physician Employment Contract, was suspended and tolled from April,, through and including July,, with respect to any claim or cause of action that might be brought by Dr. Franck against Defendant. Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of ORS A.). Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference all preceding paragraphs of this. In good faith, Dr. Franck reported unsafe patient care that fell below the standard of care, and policies and practices which compromised patient safety, which is evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation.. As a result of Dr. Franck's good-faith reports of patient safety concerns, Defendant retaliated PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

12 and took adverse employment action against Dr. Franck by requiring him to attend a communications class, declining to renew his Physician Employment Contract and discharging him from employment.. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, Dr. Franck has suffered loss of wages, loss of employment and employment benefits, injury to his personal and professional reputation and loss of self-esteem and dignity. Dr. Franck should be awarded damages, plus prejudgment interest against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $,000, non-economic damages and $,000, economic damages. 0. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of his costs and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS A. and ORS.. 1 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of ORS 1.0) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through. 1. Defendant s clinics, hospitals and surgery centers where Dr. Franck worked are health care facilities for purposes of ORS 1.. Dr. Franck reported unsafe and inappropriate treatment of patients as described herein. Dr. Franck's reports were thus protected by ORS As a result of Dr. Franck's reports of unsafe and inappropriate treatment of patients, Defendant retaliated and took adverse employment action against Dr. Franck, including requiring him to attend a communications class, declining to renew his Physician Employment Contract and discharging him. PAGE 1 -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

13 1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, Dr. Franck has suffered loss of wages, loss of employment and employment benefits, injury to his personal and professional reputation and loss of self-esteem and dignity. As compensation, Dr. Franck should be awarded damages plus prejudgment interest against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $,000, non-economic damages and $,000, economic damages and attorney fees.. Dr. Franck is entitled to an award of his costs and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS A. and ORS.. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of ORS A.) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by this reference paragraphs 1 through... Dr. Franck reported in good faith conduct he believed to be possible violations of ORS Chapter 1 or of ORS.00 to., including unsafe patient care, practices that fell below the standard of care, and policies and practices which compromised patient safety.. As a result of Dr. Franck's reports of such conduct, Defendant retaliated and took adverse employment actions against Dr. Franck, including requiring Dr. Franck to attend a communications class, declining to renew his Physician Employment Contract and discharging him. 0. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, Dr. Franck has suffered loss of wages, loss of employment and employment benefits, injury to his personal and professional reputation and loss of self-esteem and dignity. Dr. Franck should be awarded damages plus prejudgment interest against Defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $,000, PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

14 non-economic damages and $,000, economic damages. 1. Dr. Franck is entitled to an award of costs incurred and attorney s fees pursuant to ORS A. and ORS.. 1 FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through... Dr. Franck fulfilled an important public duty when he reported patient safety concerns and violations of the standard of care.. Dr. Franck pursued an important right related to employment when he objected to Defendant s demands that the anesthesiologist and anesthesiology department provide substandard patient care and follow policies and practices which placed patients at risk.. As a result of Dr. Franck's reports of his patient safety concerns and conduct he believed to be violations of rules, laws, or regulations, Defendant retaliated and took adverse employment actions against Dr. Franck, including requiring Dr. Franck to attend a communications class, declining to renew his Physician Employment Contract and discharging him.. As a result of Defendant s unlawful employment practice alleged herein, Dr. Franck is entitled to a declaration that Defendant wrongfully terminated Dr. Franck's employment. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

15 1 FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract). Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through.. Dr. Franck entered into a Physicians Employment Contract with Defendant. Defendant breached the Contract by failing to comply with its own policies which controlled the employment relationship, including the Kaiser Permanente Master Service Agreement, which codifies the relationship between the HealthPlan and Defendant and which assures physician employees that the HealthPlan employees (nurses, techs, administrators) may not interfere in the Physician-Patient relationship in any manner. Defendant repeatedly permitted HealthPlan employees to interfere with Dr. Franck s medical judgment in the care of his patients despite Dr. Franck bringing these concerns to Defendant s attention.. Defendant further breached the Contract with Dr. Franck by failing to comply with the Northwest Permanente Reference Guide for Clinican Leaders, Performance Standards and Guidelines which assures physician employees that they will receive written notice when their performance requires improvement and that Defendant will assist them in achieving a successful outcome. 0. Defendant further breached the Contract with Dr. Franck by failing to comply with NWP Policy Number 1. Employed Clinician Disciplinary and Termination Policy which provides that if a clinician's performance of their responsibilities or his or her conduct needs improvement, it is the responsibility of the management team to take remedial action, including discussion and counseling, with a timeline for meeting performance objectives. Defendant further breached the Contract with Dr. Franck by failing to comply with the NWP Policy which provides that if the Associate Medical Director determines that termination of employment should be implemented, the AMD will prepare a written PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

16 1 recommendation and a statement of reasons and the clinician in question, as well as the NWP Board of Directors, will receive notice. 1. In April of, Defendant asserted for the first time that Dr. Franck had been placed on a Work Improvement Plan ( WIP ) on September,. A WIP would normally be in writing. Dr. Franck was not shown the alleged WIP until after he had been notified that his contract was not going to be renewed and his employment was to be terminated. Defendant further breached the Contract with Dr. Franck by failing to comply with the Policy which compels Defendant to notify employees if they are to be placed on a WIP.. As a direct an proximate result of Defendant breaching the Contract, Dr. Franck has suffered economic damages of approximately $,000,000.00, including lost salary and benefits to date, prejudgment interest, and future losses, the exact amount to be determined at trial. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Implied Contract) In the alternative to Plaintiff s Fifth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges the following:. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and through 1.. As a direct an proximate result of Defendant breaching its implied employment contract with Dr. Franck, he has suffered economic damages of approximately $,000,000.00, including lost salary and benefits to date, prejudgment interest, and future losses, the exact amount to be determined at trial. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

17 1 SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing). Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through and through 1.. As Dr. Franck s employer, Defendant was in a special relationship with Dr. Franck and was subject to a standard of care that exists independent of the contract between the parties. Defendant failed to act with reasonable care in its interactions with Dr. Franck and acted in a manner to interfere with or to fail to cooperate in Dr. Franck s successful performance and continued employment.. As a direct an proximate result of Defendant breaching its duty of good faith and fair dealing, Dr. Franck has suffered economic damages of approximately $,000,000.00, including lost salary and benefits to date, prejudgment interest, and future losses, the exact amount to be determined at trial.. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant s actions, Dr. Franck has suffered injury to his personal and professional reputation and loss of self-esteem and dignity for which he should be awarded $,000, in non-economic damages. PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-

18 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL. Plaintiff demands a jury trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 1. For non-economic damages in an amount of at least $,000,000.00, or in such greater amount as may be proven at trial;. For economic damages plus prejudgment interest in an amount of at least $, , or in such greater amount as may be proven at trial;. For Plaintiff's costs and disbursements incurred herein;. For Plaintiff's attorney fees incurred herein; and. For such other and further relief as this Court determines to be just and proper. 1 th DATED this day of July,. s/ Judy Danelle Snyder JUDY DANELLE SNYDER, OSB No. Telephone: (0) 0 Facsimile: (0) 1- judy@jdsnyder.com Of Attorneys for Plaintiff PAGE -COMPLAINT 00 S.W. BROADWAY, SUITE 00 PORTLAND, OREGON (0) -0 FAX (0) 1-