Facts: Our client MG, hired firm to represent her for a second time, against allegations brought by TMB. MG had two separate cases with TMB both set for an informal settlement conference. The first case was related to allegations stemming from her first matter. That prior case resulted in a non-disciplinary sanction. However, TMB brought the case back up for a second time and argued that the first time around TMB was not specifically making allegations regarding this specific matter. The allegations were that MG resigned her privileges from a hospital while under investigation. The first case regarded her resignation from another hospital and that she did not tell this hospital about the resignation. This case was used as “background” information for the original matter. However, several hundreds of pages of documentation for this case were provided for the original case. No substantially new documentation was provided for this matter.
The second case regarded MG’s termination from an out of state hospital. Originally the hospital terminated MG for cause. However, after further review and consultation with her out of state attorney, the hospital modified the termination to be without cause.
Outcome: During the informal conference, we argued that TMB should not have brought back the first case because it was essentially the exact same case as her prior matter. The firm argued that although this matter was not the main allegation in the prior case, it was substantially argued, and evidence was provided in order to further TMB’s assertions. TMB staff argued that since this matter was not cited in MG’s non-disciplinary sanction and was not officially sited in the summary of the allegations, it was not a repeat matter. Firm countered these arguments by providing evidence that even though TMB did not follow up on this matter, it was closed by the time MG had her first informal conference. Therefore, no new information or issues were raised and all the questions TMB staff asked of MG during the informal conference were already asked during the first informal conference. Thereby showing that the matters were the same and that it would be unjust to recommend disciplinary action for conduct MG already received action for. This panel agreed and specifically pointed out to TMB staff that this current matter was resolved back in 2020 and that TMB had ample opportunity to specify this case in MG’s original matter. It was not MG’s fault that TMB did not take such action. The panel dismissed this matter. Regarding the second case, the firm argued that since MG’s termination was not for cause, there was no reason to discipline her. There was no evidence provided by TMB that MG committed any type of misconduct that caused her termination. Essentially the hospital agreed that they terminated her for no reason at all. TMB staff tried to use MG’s own admission that she was late on the day that she was terminated, as a rational for disciplinary action. However, the firm countered that argument by stating that even if she was late, that did not rise to the level of misconduct. Further, without any documentation from the hospital, TMB cannot say that was even considered in the hospital’s original rational for termination. The panel agreed and again dismissed this matter.