Dr. Rainer Gruessner, a world renowned
surgeon and academic leader, was unanimously exonerated by a hearing panel that
consisted of national liver transplant experts selected by both sides as
impartial and knowledgeable in the issues relevant to this case. The
hearing on August 5, 2014 was brought about by a Pima County Superior Court
ruling designed to rectify administrative maleficence by the University of
Arizona Health Network. On March 7, 2014, Judge Carmine Cornelio found
that Dr. Gruessner was terminated without the appropriate level of due process
that is required for such decisions by state institutions. Specifically,
the Judge was not convinced the decision to terminate Dr. Gruessner was
reasonable by a preponderance of the evidence and mandated that a fair and
impartial panel be assigned by UPH to review their decision.
The most important finding of the Hearing
Panel was their opinion that Dr. Gruessner acted reasonably in requesting the
database corrections. The University of Arizona Health Network used only
one specific case to explain their allegation – one in which it was claimed that
Dr. Gruessner removed himself from a case in which the patient died. This
idea was strongly rejected by the panel. Dr. Waldrum, CEO of the University
of Arizona Health Network, testified that his decision to terminate Dr.
Gruessner was not based on a review of the operative report for this case or
other records. When these records were reviewed by the Hearing Panel,
they easily concluded that “Dr. Gruessner would not aptly be designed the
primary surgeon.” The panel also noted that the University of Arizona
Health Network did not change any of the database records back after they
identified the changes, suggesting a lack of conviction by the University of
Arizona Health Network in their core allegations used to justify firing Dr.
Gruessner.
It seemed particularly troublesome for the
Hearing Panel that almost all those in support of the the University of Arizona
Health Network “testified” by reading court transcripts of their March 7
testimonies. In contrast, support of Dr. Gruessner was provided by in-person
or live telephone testimony. The panel accepted Dr. Gruessner’s position
that the root cause of this controversy was misunderstandings driven by the
“charged political rivalry with Dr. Goldschmid”. The Panel felt that
these problems could have been readily avoidable with a modicum of good will
and trust, which was not provided to Dr. Gruessner. Instead the hearing
panel felt that the University of Arizona Health Network appeared to choose
avenues that escalated conflict despite their own acknowledgment in his
outstanding clinical capabilities and “explosive” growth of transplantation
under his prior leadership. Repeated testimony during the hearing pointed
to Dr. Goldschmid’s specific culpability in these events. Failure of the University
of Arizona Health Network to allow Goldschmid to testify himself seemed to
further reinforce this message to the hearing panel. In fact, not allowing Dr.
Goldschmid to testify sent as strongly contradictory message to the hearing
panel as the failure of UPH to change back the database changes they uncovered.
Regarding Dr. Gruessner’s resignation as
the transplant program director, the panel decided that UNOS was required to be
notified of this event, Gruessner’s notification did not cause harm to UPH and
allegations to the contrary were not cited initially as grounds for
termination. Because a hearing designed to follow “due process” must
focus on the written notice of reasons for termination, this and all other
allegations raised at the hearing against Dr. Gruessner were deemed “unrelated
to the issues of the case”.
Based on their determination about wrongful
termination, the panel recommended that the University of Arizona Health
Network issues a public apology to Dr. Gruessner and that Dr. Gruessner’s reputation
be restored as evidenced by immediate reinstatement as a Professor of Surgery
at the University of Arizona Medical Center.
On September 5, 2014, UPH finally agreed
with the panel’s decision that the termination was wrong and offered an
apology.
No comments:
Post a Comment