Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Sometimes you read a story and conclude there’s some major detail missing. I’m the first to admit I’ve seen healthcare systems fire physicians over trivial matters. Help me identify the wrinkle.
Dr. Aysha Khoury began her faculty position in internal medicine at the Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine in Pasadena, California in July 2019. Dr. Khoury is black. On August 27, 2020 the
school advised Khoury and the other small-group facilitators to link their next class session to “critical pedagogy as well as legacies of power structures and institutionalized racism that resulting [sic] in gender bias and race bias in medicine today,” according to emails. “The recommendation is to link to the broader practice of casting a critical eye on systems.”
Khoury grew up in Georgia. Her mother is from Trinidad. Her father is from Sierra Leone.
She promised her students the discussion would be confidential. They discussed the Tuskegee syphilis study and higher rates of maternal mortality among black and Native American women. Khoury also discussed several first-hand experiences as a woman of color in medicine.
The classroom conversation ended at noon.
At 9 PM, the school’s senior associate dean for academic and community affairs, Dr. Maureen Connelly, told Khoury she was suspended from her teaching role at the medical school.
Four days later, she learned she was also suspended from her appointment at a Kaiser Permanente clinic.
Tough week.
Connelly sent an email the next day explaining the ruckus.
“[Your] removal from your faculty duties was prompted by a complaint about certain classroom activities that took place on Friday morning, August 28. The decision was made by several school leaders.”
Who were these school leaders? Administrators? Students? Why was Dr. Khoury being canceled?
A second meeting with Human Resources on September 23rd provided no answers.
Khoury lawyered up in October.
Soon after, Kaiser Permanente reinstated Khoury to a full-time position at its clinic. The contract had a term lasting through February 10, 2021. In parallel, her lawyer worked to get her reinstated at the medical school.
Khoury took to Twitter.
A group of students agitated for a town hall, which culminated in a December 16 three-hour listening session with school leadership, students, and some faculty. But many students felt the administration’s story was not consistent with Khoury’s and called for continued action. At the town hall, students presented a petition signed by more than 91% of students demanding Khoury’s reinstatement, according to the account.
External pressure was also mounting. On December 13, Shimon Cohen, a social work educator who heard about Khoury’s case on Twitter, shared a petition calling for Kaiser Permanente to make a public apology, reinstate Khoury, and make “an actionable commitment to antiracism.” By the time Cohen sent the petition to the board last week, more than 8800 people from around the globe, many of them medical professionals, had signed on.
Even with this as a backdrop, Michael Kanter, MD, the chair of clinical science informed Khoury – no dice. Her academic appointment (already suspended) would not be renewed January 31st, 2021.
The explanation:
“This decision is not based upon your bringing content related to anti-racism to the classroom or for sharing your experience as a Black woman in medicine,” he wrote. Instead, Kanter attributed Khoury’s firing to “multiple issues related to your job performance and conduct that have been raised with you directly or through your attorney, both prior to and as a result of the recently concluded fact-finding process.”
OK, what were those shortcomings?
Attempted PR détente:
“We have been working with Dr. Khoury’s lawyer to set up a facilitated discussion to find a mutually agreeable path forward for both Dr. Khoury and KPSOM,” the statement said. “We are eager to reach a resolution and to move forward in a way that is fair and respectful to all involved. Most importantly, we pledge to continue the hard, and sometimes complicated, work of addressing issues of race in medicine.”
Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine then did some virtue signaling.
On January 4, it released an “Initial Action Plan to Strengthen KPSOM’s Culture” with students, faculty, and staff. “This plan is designed as a starting point to guide and track efforts to build out the culture that supports the school’s mission and vision, including our goal to become a more anti-racist organization,” according to the school’s statement to Medscape. “This includes further advancing equity, inclusion, and diversity efforts; establishing better processes, infrastructure, and governance; and improving communications, among other priorities.”
So, there you go.
What happened here?
Dunno.
Did Dr. Khoury have performance issues prior to her discussion with medical students on race? If so, did the school inform Dr. Khoury about such issues? Did the school set her up to fail in a volatile situation, to provide cover for a decision it had already made? Who complained about the discussion, and was such a complaint a justified rationale for suspension/termination? Did the administration accede to student demands?
I’m already exhausted.
I’d love the day to come when issues related to race are as remarkable as discussing eye color. In other words, unremarkable.
What do you think? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Take Advantage of Our Review Monitoring Service
With eMerit, we help you automate review collection and posting to improve your online reputation.
Consult with a Medico-Legal Expert
Medical Justice Founder and CEO, Jeff Segal, MD, JD and our expert team provide consultations to doctors in need of guidance.
Meet the Experts Driving Medical Justice
Our Executive Team walks with our member doctors until their medico-legal obstacles are resolved.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2021 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
Not enough information is provided about the content of the discussion regarding the professor’s experience as a black doctor to be able to offer an opinion about this story. Content and context is essential in forming an opinion about whether she should have been fired for it.
The discussion about the Tuskegee syphilis study is fair game, as it was a historic medical event. She should not have been admonished in any way for offering this as a topic of discussion.
Nor should Dr. Khoury have been admonished, nay, punished, for speaking about her experiences as a black, female physician. These were HER experiences and I can be pretty sure she made that clear. And I know her students appreciated hearing about her experiences – I know I benefitted from this when I was in dental school. It almost sounds to me as though either the medical school was looking for an excuse to fire her, for whatever actual reason, or they made a mistake and either don’t want to admit it or someone on their board is biased and won’t own up to it. IMHO.