Cancer surgeon sues Kaiser medical group for firing and defaming him; awarded $1.75 million before confidential settlement. Orange County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff doctor was a surgical oncologist who worked for defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG) from January 19, 2009 to July 31, 2011.

  Dr. Wascher raised 3 primary patient care concerns with his employer: (1) There was a lack of timely access to surgery for cancer patients; (2) general surgeons were doing complex cancer cases they were not qualified to perform; (3) there was no comprehensive cancer care program at Kaiser Orange County. In response to his complaints, Dr. Wascher was defamed and was not allowed to become a partner.

  Per defense counsel: Dr. Wascher was a surgical oncologist hired into the General Surgery Department in Orange County.  While employed, he complained about timely operating room access for his complex cancer surgeries and that he should be assigned certain cancer surgeries that other non-fellowship trained surgeons were performing.  Dr. Wascher's employment was terminated after it was determined he did not have the support to become a partner.  Prior to his termination, negative comments were made by partner physicians about Dr. Wascher in the course of a Human Resources investigation.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That defendants retaliated against him for his patient advocacy and defamed him.

  Per defense counsel, plaintiff's contentions also included: That plaintiff was fraudulently induced to move to California to take the job with SCPMG with certain promises, including but not limited to the creation of a Center of Excellence for cancer treatment and that he would be performing predominately complex cancer surgeries with fewer general surgery cases.  That SCPMG, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals constituted a single employer or integrated enterprise. 

• Defendant's Contentions:

  That Dr. Wascher did not have the support of physician partners in General Surgery to make partner because he was not a good fit for the surgery department. That plaintiff’s complaints were not about patient care, but were demands to benefit his particular practice preferences. That comments made about Dr. Wascher were conditionally-privileged, as part of a confidential Human Resources investigation, and were stated as opinions.

  Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals contended that neither entity employed plaintiff or had any involvement in the actions that gave rise to the lawsuit. Defendants contended that they are separate legal entities and did not constitute the single employer of plaintiff.