 |
 |
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
call.
C. Incident with Nurse Richardson (Sudafed Prescription)
Ahmed challenges the finding that Richardson asked him to prescribe a seven-day supply of Sudafed. He contends that Richardson requested a 'standing order.' The Board's entire finding is that, '{b}ecause the client was scheduled for sinus surgery in one week, Nurse Richardson requested a seven-day prescription of Sudafed for the client.' Gullick testified that the request was for a standing order. But Richardson testified that the request was for seven days to carry the patient through to surgery. And Larry Soto said that the purpose of the meeting, at which Ahmed was present, was to determine what the medical team could do for the patient in the week before surgery.
Ahmed also argues that the evidence is insufficient to find that he failed to treat Nurse Richardson professionally and with courtesy and respect.
The undisputed findings show that Richardson requested Sudafed for a patient who had previously taken the medication for sinus problems. The Sudafed was intended to provide some relief to the patient who had a history of self-abuse related to his sinus problems. Ahmed denied Richardson's request but eventually prescribed the medication at the request of his friend, Larry Soto. Ahmed's refusal to grant Nurse Richardson's request 'forced the staff to used {sic} a 'back door' approach to obtain appropriate medical care for a client.' These facts support the finding that Ahmed failed to treat Nurse Richardson professionally and with courtesy and respect.
D. Incidents with Pamela Reasoner (Telephone Conversations)
Ahmed contends the evidence is insufficient to find that he failed to treat Pamela Reasoner with respect and that he yelled at her on three occasions over the telephone. Reasoner said Ahmed spoke in a 'very loud voice' and he was frustrated and upset. When asked whether she felt that Ahmed had yelled at her, she said, 'Yeah, especially on {the third} incident . . . .' She felt that, in raising his voice to a co-worker, Ahmed had not treated her professionally, and she considered quitting.
Ahmed also challenges the finding that he raised his voice only when he was upset or frustrated. Gullick testified that Ahmed never raised his voice in conversations they had. He said Ahmed used '{n}ormal conversation.' And Reasoner said Ahmed spoke in a normal tone of voice when he was not frustrated.
Ahmed also challenges the characterization that Dr. Souza was concerned that the patient might have a detached retina and told Reasoner to schedule the patient to be seen by a specialist within two or three days. Ahmed is correct in part. The evidence does not support the statement that Dr. Souza was concerned that the patient might have a detached retina, but Dr. Souza did direct Reasoner to schedule the patient within a two-to-three day timeframe. This finding is not necessary to support the Board's conclusions.
E. Hostile Work Environment
Finally, Ahmed challenges the findings that: (1) his behavior created a hostile work environment between himself and the nursing staff; (2) he irreparably severed his ability to work professionally in the future with the staff at the school; (3) he continued to have major problems working with staff; and (4) staff members were reluctant to raise concerns about his behavior for fear of retaliation. He argues that those who worked most closely with him held him in high regard. But the testimony regarding his behavior during his administrative review supports the Board's findings.
Leana Lamb, the School's Superintendent, reviewed the allegations against Ahmed before his terminat
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.
|
|