RISK MANAGER AT EAST LOS ANGELES HOSPITAL WRONGFULLY TERMINATED
The Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges that said Defendant to this cause of action terminated the Plaintiff's employment in violation of the following and expected Plaintiff to work in violation of the following statutes:
- California Business and Professions Code Section 2001.1 states that the Medical Board, created by California Business and Professions Code Section 2001, shall have as its highest priory the protection of the public, and the Board shall exercise that through licensing. California Business and Professions Code Section 2004 and 2004(e) of the California Business and Professions Code sets forth that the Medical Quality Board established by Section 2003 shall review the quality of medical practice carried out by doctors, surgeons, and holders under the jurisdiction of the board. Plaintiff contends that the issues described in Paragraphs 6-7 of this healthcare whistleblower complaint are the type of issues that the Medical Quality Board would investigate and cite over because they did not lead to the protection of the public through quality medical care;
- Section 2051 of the California Business and Professions Code gives only certificated doctors and surgeons the power to use drugs and order treatments. The manner in which the medical treatment of Plaintiff's daughter was being carried out whereby the division secretary and/or nurse was essentially changing the doctor's orders through negligence or wilful failure to carry out the orders in a timely fashion resulted in not getting Plaintiff's daughter drugs, tests, or prescribed food in accordance with the doctor's orders. This also violated California Business and Professions Code Section 2282(b);
- Section 2242 of the California Business and Professions Code only allows the prescribing of drugs based upon proper examinations of the patient. Plaintiff contends that drugs and treatments were being prescribed to her daughter prior to the doctor examining her, or not examining her in a good faith manner as this code section requires;
- Section 2261 of the California Business and Professions Code prohibits the knowing signing of a certificate or documents directly or indirectly related to the practice of medicine which falsely represent the existence or non-existence of facts. There were chart notations about Plaintiff's daughter that were erroneous and/or not within the purview of the doctor allegedly assigned to the case. Other assessments were also false and done without actually examining the patient. This in effect also violated Sections 2266 and 2282(d) of the California Business and Professions Code because it led to inaccurate and inadequate medical records being created and kept;
- the failure to adequately examine Plaintiff's daughter, yet proscribing her medication could lead to violations of California Business and Professions Code Section 2292 on the basis that the conduct constitutes gross negligence or a pattern of inappropriate prescribing, incompetence, or a pattern of substandard care;
- California Health and Safety Code Section 1254 specifies that Defendant's hospital is subject to licensing and inspection. California Health and Safety Code Section 1255 specifies that the licensed facility must have the equipment and procedures necessary for offering the services specified under 1255. Given the statutory violations in the above sub-paragraphs of this healthcare whistleblower lawsuit and what is pled in Paragraphs 6-7 of the whistleblower lawsuit, Plaintiff contends that her complaints to Bauer were about conduct that could lead to licensure violations and indicated the hospital was not equipped to treat the patient;
- California Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5(b) prohibits healthcare facilities from discriminating or retaliating against employees who present complaints or grievances about the care, services, or conditions of a healthcare facility, and California Health and Safety Code Section 1278.5(d) that creates a rebuttable presumption the employee has been discriminated against for so reporting if the discriminatory treatment occurs within 120 days of the reporting.
- California Labor Code Section 1102.5(c) because Plaintiff was refusing to participate in activities that would violate the statutes specified in the above paragraphs. Plaintiff had a legal right under sub-paragraphs a-g of this wrongful termination lawsuit to make the complaints she made. In fact, due to her job she had a right if not a legal duty to make the disclosures she made in Paragraph 7 of this healthcare whistleblower lawsuit. Not making these disclosures would be forcing Plaintiff to be a risk manager oppressing violations of the statutes in the above sub-paragraphs. Once Plaintiff made these disclosures, voiced her opinions and complained as Paragraph 7 of the whistleblower lawsuit indicates she was terminated. The violation of 1102.5(c) was also a violation of Labor Code Section 1103 which makes 1102.5 an important public policy because it has criminal penalties, and 1102.5(f) provides for penalties;
- California Labor Code Section 132a was also violated and Plaintiff was being forced to work in an environment whereby she could not exercise her rights to pursue medical treatment, or worker's compensation benefits because upon making those intentions known she was terminated;
- the letter and spirit of California Labor Code Section 6300 enacted for the purpose of ensuring a safe and healthful work environment. By having Plaintiff work at a work station that was causing her pain and injury this section was violated, and Section 6400 requiring employers to furnish safe work places to their employees, and Section 6402 stating employees can't be forced to work in unsafe work environments which thereby gave Plaintiff the right to complain about the safety of her work environment;
- California Labor Code Section 6310(b) prohibiting discharge and discrimination because an employee has made a bona fide safety complaint to their employer;
- all other state and federal statutes, regulations, administrative orders, and ordinances which effect society at large, and which discovery will reveal were violated by all named and DOE Defendants by retaliating, harassing, discriminating against the Plaintiff, and firing Plaintiff.
California Labor Code Section 1102.5(c) was violated because Plaintiff was refusing to participate in activities that would violate the statutes specified in the above sub-paragraphs of this healthcare whistleblower lawsuit. Plaintiff had a legal right to seek medical treatment covered by worker's compensation. Plaintiff also had a legal right to report an industrial injury. Defendant did not allow Plaintiff to exercise the rights created by the above sub-paragraphs of this healthcare whistleblower lawsuit because Plaintiff was terminated for exercising those rights thereby requiring Plaintiff to work in a work environment that was illegal and Plaintiff could not do anything about it. Plaintiff was essentially expected to work in an illegal work environment, Plaintiff refused to do so by seeking medical attention, reporting statutory violations relating to her daughter's healthcare, and Plaintiff was discriminated against and terminated as a result. The violation of 1102.5(c) was also a violation of Labor Code Section 1103 which makes 1102.5 an important public policy because it has criminal penalties, and 1102.5(f) provides for penalties.
HOSPITAL WHISTLEBLOWER CASE RESULT: THE HOSPITAL WENT BANKRUPT, BUT THE SUING EMPLOYEE MANAGED TO COLLECT AROUND $85,000 IN 2014 DOLLARS
WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF SHERMAN OAKS EMPLOYEE FORCED TO USE DANGEROUS HAIR PRODUCTS ON CUSTOMERS
Plaintiff began working for the corporate Defendants on or about January 1, 1999 as a licensed hair stylist in said Defendants' research and development unit where he was testing the corporate Defendants' new products on black models.
Soon into Plaintiff's employment, he realized that said Defendants were testing an unsafe product on their models. This product was supposed to be a hair relaxer. However, it typically burned off the models' hair and caused them extreme pain. Many of these models requested that this relaxer not be used on them.
During Plaintiff's employment with the corporate Defendants, Plaintiff was told by his management to lie to the models he was servicing and tell them that the hair relaxer was conditioner, lotion, or something other than the relaxer the models knew had burned off their hair in the past, caused them extreme pain, and which they said they did not want used on them. Continuing to apply the product after such statements amounted to non-consensual battery of the patients in a manner that was injuring them and causing them pain. Additionally, the testing was being done in a fraudulent manner by lying to the models about what was being put in their hair when they specifically rescinded consent for the relaxer to be put in their hair.
On or about January of 2001, Plaintiff began investigating what his obligations were to continuously apply the relaxer product to the models, especially, under said Defendants' instructions that he was supposed to lie to the models and not tell them that he was applying this product that they had previously asked him not to apply because it was burning off their hair and hurting them. This inquiry included Plaintiff calling the State Board that licenses Plaintiff. They told Plaintiff that he was not obligated to apply the product if it was harming clients. On or about January 15, 2001, Plaintiff called Cal-OSHA. At that point, dishonest Co-worker, the Director of Research and development at said Defendants, and Plaintiff's manager, told Plaintiff "we're going to HR to get you fired." Plaintiff was trying to call Cal-OSHA because he thought they were the appropriate government agency to report such a safety issue to. After this incident, Plaintiff was retaliated against for complaining to governmental agencies about suspected illegal practices by being placed on administrative leave.
Also on or about January 15, 2001, Plaintiff spoke to Slick Boss, CEO and Chairman, of the corporate Defendants. Plaintiff explained that he thought he was being retaliated against for calling OSHA and complaining to the Defendants' corporate management that he was being asked to fraudulently and deceitfully apply a harmful hair relaxer to models who did not want it applied because it had burned off their hair in the past.
As alleged in Paragraph 12 of the whistleblower lawsuit, Plaintiff called both Cal-OSHA and the State Board that licenses him as a cosmologist. Plaintiff alleges that he made these calls because he reasonably believed the State Board that licensed him could answer his question as to whether, as a licensed cosmetologist, Plaintiff was obligated, at his employer's direction, to put a painful hair relaxer on his models when the models specifically told him they did not want the hair relaxer on them, and it was burning off their hair and causing them pain especially if there was an issue with the models being mislead as to whether such a product was being applied. Plaintiff contends that the Board did give him an answer. Plaintiff contends that he called Cal-OSHA because he reasonably believed that the product he was testing might be dangerous to himself as well as the models being that it was burning off their hair, leaving bald spots, and causing the patients severe pain. Plaintiff further thought that Cal-OSHA would have information about whether a product was safe for use on human beings. Plaintiff alleges that his managers and supervisors became aware that he had made both calls.
The Plaintiff alleges that because he made the calls to the State Board and Cal-OSHA, the corporate Defendants and their managers and supervisors decided that Plaintiff should be terminated, put on leave, and otherwise retaliated against. Plaintiff contends that such retaliatory action was the corporate Defendants' adoption and enforcement of a policy that had the effect of preventing the Plaintiff from disclosing information to the government when the Plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed a violation of laws these governmental agencies cared about.
Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges that the corporate Defendants terminated the Plaintiff in violation of public policy by terminating Plaintiff due to his complaints that violate the following statutes that effect society at large, for the following reasons:
CASE RESULT: THE WHISTLEBLOWING EMPLOYEE DIED UNDER MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE INVESTIGATED BY A SPECIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
- Plaintiff had been consistently complaining to management that he did not want to use a product on his models that was burning off their hair especially when they specifically did not give consent for that product to be used. Plaintiff contends that this lack of consent constituted a battery under California Penal Code Section 242 because it was the use of force in the application of chemicals that Plaintiff was not authorized to apply to the patients. Plaintiff further contends that it was a fraudulent violation of California Civil Code Section 1710 to tell the models that he was not applying the relaxer they did not want on their hair, but that he was applying conditioner, lotion, or some other substance. Plaintiff further contends that this deceptive process had the effect of battering the models and was a violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 because the Defendants' competitors did not use false and deceptive means of applying dangerous, bad products to their models, without their models' consent, that had the effect of burning off their hair, perhaps permanently, and causing them grave physical pain and discomfort;
- California Labor Code Section 1102.5 because the corporate Defendants terminated Plaintiff for complaining to the State Board of Cosmetology and Cal-OSHA about what Plaintiff reasonably believed to be violations of the law;
- the California Fair Employment and Housing Section Act Sections 12900, et. seq. which prohibits the discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and termination of employees based upon their race;
- Title II, Division IV of the California Code of Regulations regarding the California Fair Employment and Housing act which makes race discrimination and harassment unlawful;
- Article I, Section VIII of the California Constitution which race discrimination and harassment;
- California Government Code Section 12940(h) which prohibits the retaliation, discrimination, and termination of employees who complain of forbidden discriminatory practices under the FEHA;
- violations of the Cosmetology and Barbering Act known as California Business and Professions Code Section 7300, Et. Seq. because Plaintiff complained that the corporate Defendants had employees who were performing the sort of service listed in Section 7316 for which a license is required, and Section 7317 which makes it is a misdemeanor to perform such services without a license, and because Plaintiff believed that he was performing unsafe services that were hazardous and harmful to his clients;
- all other state and federal statutes, regulations, administrative orders, and ordinances which effect society at large, and which discovery will reveal were violated.