 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmed v. Department of Social and Health Services8/18/2000
426 P.2d 476 (1967)). The Board's decision is presumed to be correct. Ballinger, 104 Wn.2d at 328. And unchallenged administrative findings are verities on appeal. Fuller v. Department of Employment Sec., 52 Wn. App. 603, 606, 762 P.2d 367 (1988).
IV. Findings of Fact
Ahmed challenges numerous factual findings. All but one are supported by substantial evidence.
A. Incident with Nurse Long (Preparation of Exam Room)
Ahmed first disputes the finding that Nurse Long was not familiar with the PAT B Clinic. He argues that Long had previously worked in the clinic. Although Long had worked in the PAT B Clinic in the past as a backup, he testified that he 'had no experience working in that particular unit nor with that particular procedure.'
Second, Ahmed challenges the findings that he did not help Long prepare the area and the patient for examination but, instead, complained about the amount of time it was taking and inappropriately responded to Long's attempts to prepare the room and the patient. Ahmed says he got a sheet to cover the patient and obtained examination instruments and the K-Y jelly. The record shows that Ahmed did these things but only after Long looked around first. Moses testified that, while Long went through all of the drawers looking for a particular instrument, Ahmed stood back watching him and finally opened a drawer and said, 'Here it is.' With regard to the K-Y jelly, she said, 'Dr. Ahmed seemed to know where it was and went ahead and got it himself after Mr. Long had been looking for it.' Moses agreed that Ahmed appeared to be 'toying' with Long.
Third, Ahmed argues that the evidence does not show he was 'angry' or 'yelled at Nurse Long.' Moses testified that Ahmed seemed 'loud' and 'fairly upset' and made 'kind of a tutting' impatient sound. Long said Ahmed used a 'very sharp tone' such that Long felt he 'was creating an environment that was increasing the patient's agitation.' Gullick did not see Long but heard two angry, male voices coming from inside the clinic. Ahmed was yelling at someone. The Board was entitled to infer that Ahmed was yelling at Long.
Fourth, Ahmed contends that the evidence does not support a finding that he failed to model appropriate behavior to individuals working and living at Rainier School. The evidence shows that Ahmed became frustrated, impatient, and spoke in a sharp tone. He toyed with and humiliated Nurse Long in front of a patient and caused the patient to become agitated. The evidence clearly supports the finding.
B. Incident with Nurse Sailsbery (Feeding Tube)
Ahmed challenges the findings that he responded inappropriately and yelled at Nurse Sailsbery during the feeding tube incident. But Sailsbery testified, 'I was also yelled at several times and talked demeaningly to when I was doing all I could.' Ahmed's argument that the yelling is not attributed to him is without merit. It is clear from the preceding testimony that Sailsbery was referring to him.
Ahmed also disputes the finding about the first call from Nurse Sailsbery. According to the finding, he testified that Nurse Sailsbery did not tell him the patient was bleeding. Although Ahmed rejects this characterization of his testimony, he did suggest that he was puzzled when Sailsbery called him. She said the patient had pulled out his feeding tube and they were trying to put it back. He said this was not an emergency situation, but was a low priority. Later he said, 'Then I got the second call and she said now it is bleeding.' From these statements, the Board could easily find that Ahmed was suggesting that Sailsbery did not mention the bleeding in the first
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|