06.06.12 complaint (conformed).pdf

I CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN & McKENNARICHARD D. CARROLL (State Bar No. 116913) Ca)'lrpll,~ln)COl'\>

2 JOHN S. HINMAN (State Bar No. 265581) ",,,!.I&1fV,IM1iJ'iJ&O .111 West Ocean Boulevard, 14th Floor ('QVNTYotUl.'l'\\Ctl1?~l'ilA

3 Post Office Box 22636Long Beach, California 90801-5636 JUN 06 2012

4 Telephone No. (562) 432-5855 / Facsimile No. (562) 432-87R, 'CI" ..fiffihn, )\f,,!:, Exec tlve Officer/Clerk

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff GAIL V. ANDERSON, JR., MD. BY Co,"o, ,,,,,: n'PU'"

6

7

CASE NCBC 486014COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

~Il CIVIL CONSPIRACY2 DEFAMATIONILIBELISLANDER3 DEFAMATIONILIBEL SLANDER

PERSE(4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS(5) NEGLIGENCE AND

NEGLIGENCE PER SE (CivilCode Section 1714)

(6) FALSE LIGHT(7) FALSE IMPRISONMENT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

GAIL V. ANDERSON, JR., MD.,

8

9

10

II

12

13 vs.

14 MITCHELL KATZ, M.D.; HAL YEE, JR.,IS MD.; and DOES I through 10, inclusive,

16

17

18

19

20

21 COMES NOW Plaintiff GAIL V. ANDERSON, JR., MD. and complaints and alleges

22 against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

23 PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

24 I. Plaintiff GAIL V. ANDERSON, JR., MD. is a resident of Los Angeles County.

25 Since 1998, DR. ANDERSON has been the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Harbor-UCLA

26 Medical Center ("Harbor-UCLA" or "the hospital"). He also serves as Associate Dean of the

27 UCLA School ofMedicine. As Harbor-UCLA's CMO, which carries the class specification of

28 "Medical Director II," DR. ANDERSON's administrative responsibilities relate to overseeing

Ell 00\3710--02\PLDlCOMPLAINTOO I.wpd COMPLAINT

1 and maintaining high standards of patient care delivery, including, but not limited to,

2 participating in: formulating and executing short and long-term medical plans and policies;

3 directing, overseeing, and maintaining the academic intern and residency training programs;

4 coordinating professional services within the hospital; coordinating with other County hospitals

5 and divisions within the County; and resolving problems relating to patient care.

6 2. DR. ANDERSON graduated from Dartmouth College and earned his doctorate in

7 medicine at the University of Southern California ("USC"). He completed an internship in

8 obstetrics and gynecology at the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center and his residency in

9 emergency medicine at Emory University, Grady Memorial Hospital. He received a master's

10 degree in business administration from Emory University in 1988. DR. ANDERSON has been

II certified by the American Board of Emergency Medicine and the American Board of Medical

12 Management. Prior to becoming CMO of Harbor-UCLA, DR. ANDERSON served as Senior

13 Vice President of Medical Affairs and Chief of the Medical Staff of Grady Health System in

14 Atlanta, Georgia.

IS 3. As CMO of Harbor-UCLA, DR. ANDERSON has guided the hospital through

16 many challenges. He was pivotal in helping to avert Harbor-UCLA's closure in the face of

17 budget crises, and worked to alleviate patient crowding in the wake ofthe closure ofthe fonner

18 MLKJDrew Medical Center. DR. ANDERSON's leadership for many years has assisted Harbor

19 UCLA maintain an excellent reputation for the high quality medical care provided to patients,

20 irrespective ofincome or insurance. Harbor-UCLA has served as an important training ground

21 for many distinguished doctors and nurses. The hospital is avaluable asset to the County ofLos

22 Angeles, and for over a decade, DR. ANDERSON has dedicated himself to ensuring that it

23 continues to achieve its mission to provide essential services to the community and surrounding

24 region. DR. ANDERSON also has served the County by acting as the Acting Chief Medical

25 Officer for the County ofLos Angeles Department ofHealth Services ("DHS") from 2000-2002,

26 and then in 20 I0 served as the Interim ChiefMedical Officer ofDHS. Through hard work and

27 diligent service to the residents of Los Angeles County, DR. ANDERSON has acquired a

28 reputation as a reliable leader in the Los Angeles County health system.

2

E:I J00137J0-02\PLDICOMPLAINTOO 1.wpd COMPLAINT

1 4. On 8/29/11, DR. ANDERSON was personally escorted outofHarbor-UCLA after

2 being delivered a letter ofOrdered Absence from Defendant MITCHELL H. KATZ MD. DR.

3 KATZ's letter did not provide any reasons or supporting facts for the action taken against DR.

4 ANDERSON, rather, it stated that there was a pending administrative investigation and, until

5 such time as it is completed, DR. ANDERSON was to remain at home from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00

6 p.m. Monday through Friday "for any job-related communication or instructions." The letter

7 also noted that "Administrative Leave is not a disciplinary action."

8 5. Defendant DR. KATZ, is, and at all times relevant was, the Director of Health

9 Services ("DHS") for Los Angeles County. Defendant HAL YEE, JR., M.D. ("DR. YEE") is,

10 and at all times relevant was, Chief Medical Officer for the DHS.

11 6. Defendants DOES 1through 10, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names because

12 their true names and capacities are unknown to Plaintiff. When their true names and capacities

13 are ascertained, Plaintiffwill amend this Complaint by inserting their true names and capacities

14 herein. Plaintiffis informed and believe and thereon alleges that each ofthe fictitiously named

15 Defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that

16 Plaintiffs damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by each ofthose Defendants.

17 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein

18 mentioned, each of the Defendants named herein, including those fictitiously named as DOES,

19 were the agents, employees, servants, partners, joint venturers, co-conspirators, aiders, and

20 abettors of each of the other Defendants named herein, including those fictitiously named as

21 DOES, and that in doing the things hereinafter alleged, each ofthe Defendants was acting within

22 the course and scope of said agency, employment, master servant-relationship, venture,

23 conspiracy, and criminal act.

24 8. On or about 8/29/2011, DR. KATZ and DR. YEE, formed and agreement, and

25 thereupon acting in concert, ordered Greg Polk, administrative deputy, and hospital security

26 officers, ifnecessaty, to remove DR. ANDERSON from his assigned office as CMO at Harbor

27 UCLA. DR. ANDERSON was provided little time to gather professional and personal

28 belongings and was escorted to the hospital exit in full view of fellow physicians, staffers,

3

E:\l 00\3710-02\PLD\COMPLA1NTOOl ,wpd COMPLAINT

1 nurses, other hospital employees, patients, and visitors. DR. KATZ wrongfully and without due

2 cause placed DR. ANDERSON on administrative leave and assigned him to his home.

3 9. Despite the action being a confidential personnel matter, DR. KATZ and/or DR.

4 YEE then deliberately, maliciously, and in conscious disregard for DR. ANDERSON's rights,

5 leaked a news story to the Los Angeles Times regarding the humiliating public expulsion from

6 his office of nearly thirteen years. This deliberate action jeopardized DR. ANDERSON's

7 well-established professional and personal reputation in the international, national, regional, and

8 local medical and professional communities, as well as the residential community where he lives

9 and socializes. The news article was libelous per se in several respects by implying that he was

lOa criminal and a danger to hospital staff and patients.

II 10. On information and belief, DR. KATZ and/or DR. YEE leaked a second story to

12 the Daily Breeze newspaper in DR. ANDERSON's hometown continuing the same defamatory

13 statements and innuendo. Local television stations picked up the story and ran spots repeating

14 the same defamatory statements and innuendo. Local reports were then run on national and

15 international wire services resulting in additional defamatory publications.

16 II. Defendants' actions have invaded DR. ANDERSON's professional and personal

17 privacy, caused him severe emotional distress, have pervasively and irrevocably destroyed his

18 professional and personal reputation in the international, national, regional, and local medical

19 and professional communities, as well as in the community in which he resides. Defendants,

20 without cause or due process oflaw, have further deprived DR. ANDERSON ofhis federal and

21 state constitutional rights to freedom of movement.

22 12. Each and every action ofDefendants was carefully and maliciously calculated to

23 injure and damage DR. ANDERSON. The injuries and damages DR. ANDERSON has and

24 continues to endure are to his mental and physical health, his reputation, and his future ability

25 to financially support himself. His losses are both non-economic and economic. Claimant also

26 seeks exemplary damages.

27 13. Plaintiffhas timely filed a claim with the County ofLos Angeles, DR. KATZ and

28 DR. YEE's employer. The County ofLos Angeles is not named in this lawsuit. The claim was

4

E:\! 00\371 0-02\PLDICOMPLAINTOO I.wpd COMPLAINT

Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs I througb 13 ofthis Complaint as if fully set forth14.

1 rejected by operation of law.

2

3

4

5

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

6 herein.

7 15. In doing the acts alleged herein, Defendants fonned an agreement and operated

8 a conspiracy to defame, inflict emotional distress, and falsely imprison Plaintiff, and to place

9 Plaintiff in a false light. Defendants, and each of them, did so conspire to commit these

10 violations with knowledge that such conspiracy was wrongful and would cause Plaintiffto suffer

11 damage to his reputation, interference and disruption of his economic benefits and advantage,

12 loss of profits, inconvenience, and emotional distress.

13 16. In addition to the agreement alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them,

14 engaged in wrongful actions in furtherance ofthe conspiracy.

15 17. Defendants' conduct was intentional, outrageous, malicious, fraudulent,

16 oppressive, and despicable and carried out with a wilful and conscious disregard of the rights

17 ofPlaintiff, thus entitling Plaintiffto punitive damages to punish and make example ofhim and

18 prevent him from engaging in such practice in the future.

19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.

20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21 DEFAMATIONILIBEL/SLANDER

22 18. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs I through 17 ofthis Complaint as iffully set forth

23 herein.

24 19. As set forth in the preliminary allegations above, Defendants deliberately leaked

25 libelous and slanderous false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffwith the knowledge

26 and intent that they would be published, broadcast, put on the Internet, and otherwise

27 communicated to Plaintiffs colleagues in the international, national, state, regional, and local

28 medical communities, to his fellow medical professional employees in the DHS, and to the

5

E:\100\371 0-02\PLDICOMPLAfNTOO 1.wpd COMPLAINT

1 public at-large.

2 20. The defamatory statements are slanderous and libelous per se.

3 21. Additionally, as a result ofthe publication ofsaid defamatory statements, Plaintiff

4 suffered injury to his reputations as well as annoyance, inconvenience, and emotional distress.

5 22. Defendants' conduct was intentional, outrageous, malicious, fraudulent,

6 oppressive, and despicable and carried out with a wilful and conscious disregard of the rights

7 ofPlaintiff, thus entitling Plaintiffto punitive damages to punish and make example ofthem and

8 prevent them from engaging in such practice in the future.

9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for judgment as set forth below.

10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11 DEFAMATIONILIBEL SLANDER PER SE


13 herein.

14 24. As set forth in the preliminary allegations above, Defendants fabricated and

15 deliberately leaked slanderous and libelous statements in an attempt to injure and damage

16 Plaintiffs reputation and force him to resign as CMO of Harbor-UCLA. The publications

17 included, but were not limited to, news stories in the Los Angeles Times and Daily Breeze

18 newspapers. In statements to agents of these newspapers, Defendants defamed Plaintiff by

19 relaying his humiliating public expulsion from his office of nearly thirteen years, and falsely

20 asserting that Plaintiff was a criminal and a danger to hospital staff and patients.

21 25. In making these statements, Defendants possessed the knowledge and intent that

22 such statements would be published, broadcast, put on the Internet, and otherwise communicated

23 to Plaintiffs colleagues in the international, national, state, regional, and local medical

24 communities, to his fellow medical professional employees in the DHS, and to the public at

25 large.

26 26. The statements made by Defendants were false and unprivileged at the time they

27 were made.

28 27. The statements were published to others than Plaintiff.

6

E:\I 00\371 0-02\PLDlCOMPLAINTOO I:wpd COMPLAINT

1 28. The statements directly injured Plaintiff in both his personal and professional

2 capacities. and his ability to earn a living in his occupation.

3 29. The defamatory statements are libelous and slanderous per se.

4 30. As a proximate result ofDefendant's defamation ofPlaintiff, Plaintiffhas suffered

5 and continues to suffer pervasive and irrevocable injury to his reputation and occupation, and

6 suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and severe motional distress all to

7 his damage in an amount according to proof.

8 31. Defendants committed the acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and

9 oppressively, with the wrongful intention ofinjuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive

10 amounting to despicable conduct, and in conscious disregard ofPlaintiff's rights. Plaintiffis thus

11 entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.


13 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14 INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS


16 herein.

17 33. Defendants' conduct as alleged in the preliminary allegations was outrageous and

18 extreme in that it went beyond all bounds of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable

19 in a civilized society.

20 34. Defendants engaged in this conduct with the specific intent to cause Plaintiff

21 severe and extreme emotional distress and/or with the reckless disregard of the probability of

22 doing so. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would cause extreme

23 injury, distress, and damage to the emotional and psychological health, safety, and well-being

24 of Plaintiff.

25 35. As a direct, proximate, and legal result ofthe extreme and outrageous conduct of

26 Defendants, Plaintiff sustained mental pain and suffering in a sum to be detennined according

27 to proof at trial.

28 36. The aforementioned conduct was malicious, despicable, and carried out with the

7

E:\! 00\371 0-02\PLD\COMPLAINTOOl.wpd COMPLAINT

1 wilful and conscious disregard to the rights and safety ofPlaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to

2 punitive damages to punish and make an example of Defendants.


4 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENCE PER SE - Civil Code Section 1714


7 herein.

8 38. Pursuantto common law and California Civil Code Section 1714, Defendants, and

9 each ofthem, were and remain responsible for injury occasioned by another as a result of their

10 lack ofordinary care in the management oftheir persons. By engaging in the acts herein alleged,

11 Defendants negligently breached said duties owed to Plaintiff.

12 39. Defendants' negligence has and continues to be a substantial factor in causing

13 injury and damages to Plaintiff.

14 40. The injuries to Plaintiff were of the nature which Civil Code Section 1714 was

15 designed to prevent. Plaintiff was of the class ofpersons for whose protection the statute was

16 adopted. Therefore, Defendants' negligence is presumed pursuant to California Evidence Code

17 Section 669.


19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20 FALSE LIGHT

21 41. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs 1through 40 ofthis complaint as iffully set forth

22 herein.

23 42. As set forth in the preliminary allegations above, Defendants invaded Plaintiffs

24 privacy by, without Plaintiffs consent, leaking a news story to various publications, including

25 but not limited to the Los Angeles Times and Daily Breeze newspapers, that Plaintiff had been

26 publicly expelled from Harbor-UCLA following his receipt ofa confidential Letter ofOrdered

27 Absence. Defendant so acted with knowledge that the Letter of Ordered Absence merely

28 advised Plaintiffthat there an administrative investigation was pending against him and that the

8

E:\I00\371 0-02IPLD\COMPLAINTOO1,wpd COMPLAINT

administrative leave was not a disciplinary action. Defendants' statements to the publications

2 implied that Defendant was involved in criminal conduct.

3 43. Defendants infonned the Los Angeles Times and/or Daily Breeze newspapers that

4 Plaintiff was being investigated by Los Angeles County for credentialing procedures, was

5 suspended andlor placed on administrative leave, and most hannfully, that he had to be escorted

6 from his office.

7 44. In disclosing the infonnation regarding the confidential Letter ofOrdered Absence

8 in relation to Plaintiffs expulsion from his office of 13 years, Defendants possessed the

9 knowledge and intent that their statements would be published, broadcast, put on the internet,

10 and otherwise communicated to Plaintiffs colleagues in the international, national, state,

11 regional, and local medical communities, and to his fellow medical professional employees

12 within the DHS.

13 45. The Los Angeles Times and Daily Breeze newspapers served the Defendants'

14 purpose ofcommunicating their statements concerning Plaintiff's forced leave ofabsence to the

15 public at-large by publishing articles on September I and 3, 2011 that relayed the infonnation

16 given to them by Defendants.

17 46. The portrayal of Plaintiff in the Los Angeles Times and Daily Breeze

18 newspapers casted Plaintiff in a false light by implying that Plaintiff had engaged in criminal

19 conduct and or was a danger to hospital staff, patients, and/or visitors.

20 47. Defendants' communication to the Los Angeles Times and Daily Breeze

21 constituted a public disclosure to a large number ofpeople in that Defendants were aware that

22 publication in widely-read local and regional newspapers was substantially certain to make their

23 statements public knowledge.

24 48. The portrayal ofPlaintiffby defendants was highly offensive and objectionable

25 to Plaintiff and would be to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities because it portrayed

26 Plaintiff as a criminal actor and exposed him to scorn and strong public criticism both in his

27 community of medical professionals, his patients, and the public-at-large.

28 49. Defendants exposed plaintiffto this publicity with malice in that Defendants either

9

£:\100\371 0-02\PLD\COMPLAINTOO 1,wpd COMPLAINT

1 had actual knowledge of the falsity of their statements or acted with reckless disregard for the

2 truth or falsity of their statements. Defendants accused Plaintiff of wrongful conduct and

3 implied that he was a dangerous figure despite the fact that the Letter of Ordered Absence did

4 not indicate that Plaintiffwas actually culpable for the conduct claimed against him. Defendants

5 made these statements for the malicious purpose ofinjuring and damaging Plaintiff and forcing

6 him to resign from his position at Harbor-UCLA.

7 50. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant's defamation of Plaintiff, Plaintiff

8 has suffered and continues to suffer pervasive and irrevocable injury to his reputation and

9 occupation, and suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and severe

10 emotional distress all to his damage in an amount according to proof.


12 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13 FALSE IMPRISONMENT

14 51. Plaintiffincorporates paragraphs 1through 50 ofthis complaint as iffully set forth

15 herein.

16 52. As alleged above, Defendants, and each of them, intentionally deprived Plaintiff

17 of his freedom of movement through the issuance of the Letter of Ordered Absence, which

18 ordered defendant to remain at home from 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday "for

19 any job-related communications or instructions."

20 53. Following the issuance of the letter, on or around August 29,2011, Defendants,

21 acting in concert, ordered Greg Polk, administrative deputy, to remove Plaintiff from his office

22 at Harbor-UCLA and to use hospital security officers in his discretion. In carrying out the order,

23 Plaintiff was given little time to collect his personal and professional belongings and was

24 escorted to the hospital exit. As a result ofDefendants ' actions, and without due cause, Plaintiff

25 was deprived of his liberty and forcefully and unlawfully expelled from his office, placed on

26 administrative leave, and compelled to remain at his home.

2? 54. The issuance ofthis letter and the subsequent actions taken against him as ordered

28 by Defendants were intentionally committed for the sole and malicious purpose of injuring and

to

E:\l 00\371 0-02\PLDlCOMPLAlNTOO1.wpd COMPLAINT

1 damaging Plaintiff, and to force him to resign from his position as CMO of Harbor-UCLA.

2 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant' s defamation ofPlaintiff, Plaintiff

3 has suffered and continues to suffer pervasive and irrevocable injury to his reputation and

4 occupation, and suffered and continues to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, and severe

5 emotional distress all to his damage in an amount according to proof.


7 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

8 Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for damages as follows:

DATED: June 5, 2012

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Economic damages of $10,000,000;

Non-economic damages of $20,000,000;

Exemplary damages of $20,000,000;

For interest as allowed by law;

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

CARROLL, KELLY, TROTTER, FRANZEN & McKENNA

BY':7L----lm%/OO~~?<cfD.CAR··R· 00=------ D. CARROLL

HNS~INMANAttorneys for Plaintiff

~OAIL V. ANDERSON, JR., MD.

11

E:\l 00\371 0-02\PLOICOMPLAINTOO I.wpd COMPLAINT

06.06.12 complaint (conformed).pdf

Documents