The Kaiser Papers A Public Service Web SiteIn Copyright Since September 11, 2000
This web site is in no manner affiliated with any Kaiser entity and the for profit Permanente
Permission is granted to mirror this web site -
Please acknowledge where the material was obtained.

Link for Translation of the Kaiser Papers
Custom Search

Retaliatory Actions Taken Against Physicians and Administrators for attempting to improve patient Quality of Care
DEAN KEVIN LURIE, M.D.  |  Charles Phillips, M.D.  |  |  Barbara Zipkin  |  Carrie Harris Muller  |  

Kenneth Ross Herrmann  |  Robert Wascher  |

Showing a consistent pattern of behavior on the part of Kaiser and the for profit Permanente, all of these documented court cases show retaliatory action taken against the physcians that attempted to improve patient quality of care.  We have information on more than thirty of these cases that have taken place.  Only a few are presented here on this page because either they have already been publicized and therefore are no longer a concern for the physicians identity being made public or are presented here with the permission of persons personally involved in the cases.

DEAN KEVIN LURIE, M.D.  Vs. Kaiser Permanente - Mid-Atlantic  Filed 2006

Dr. Lurie repeatedly attempted to raise the quality of care standards within the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente system.  In retaliation he was accused of padding his time records.  A age discrimination suit has followed his sudden termination by the Permanente with charges of padding his time.  He had served the Kaiser patient population for nearly 17 years.  Since leaving the Permanente Group, said Group has consistently interfered with Dr. Lurie's private practice in an attempt of further employment retaliation.  Kaiser has severed his pension plan.

EEOC Dismisses Age Complaint Against Kaiser Based on Pay Plan
The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission dismissed a complaint Aug. 1 alleging age discrimination against the Permanente Group of Northern California based on an incentive pay plan it used to offer.

The incentive was a signing bonus and 10% higher pay for physicians in selected specialties that Kaiser was having trouble recruiting about 10 years ago, offered only to physicians between three and 15 years out of residency It was withdrawn in November 1999.

Emergency physician Charles Phillips, M.D., was in his mid-50s when he started working part-time for Kaiser in 1997. When he applied for a full-time job there, he was told he was not eligible for the 10% higher pay because he had more than 15 years of experience. He found work outside the Kaiser system in Fresno, Calif. Phillips filed a complaint against Kaiser and its affiliated Permanente Group in March 1999, claiming that because nearly all physicians who have 15 years of post-residency experience are at least 40 years old -- the age at which the Age Discrimination in Employment Act kicks in -- the denial of the incentive to those with more than 15 years experience was age discrimination.
Kaiser countered that physicians with that much experience drew lower salaries in the marketplace, and that their knowledge was often somewhat out of date.

Phillips had 90 days after the EEOC dismissal -- until Oct. 31 -- to file the case in federal court. As of Nov. 21, Kaiser was unaware of such a filing, said spokeswoman Beverly Hayon.
Related article: