 |
 |
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
dy there, he became upset and yelled at her for not informing him of the appointment during his first call. Ahmed's reaction was unproductive and a waste of time and resources.
C. Willful Violation of Rules and Regulations
The evidence also supports the conclusion that Ahmed willfully violated the school's rules and regulations. According to the Board, 'Willful violation of published employing agency or institution or Personnel Resources Board rules or regulations is established by facts showing the existence and publication of the rules or regulations, Appellant's knowledge of the rules or regulations, and failure to comply with the rules or regulations.' Further, '{a} willful violation presumes a deliberate act.'
As demonstrated in the 'neglect of duty' section above, Ahmed violated Rainier School Basic Policies requiring him to promote and respect the rights and dignity of the patients and to exhibit the highest standards of behavior toward others. And Ahmed admitted that he was aware of these duties and responsibilities. In addition, '{e}mployees . . . sign client abuse statements at time of employment acknowledging their understanding of existing policies and the consequences for abusive action.'
D. Gross Misconduct
'Gross misconduct is flagrant misbehavior which adversely affects the agency's ability to carry out its functions.' Ahmed argues that his conduct did not constitute gross misconduct. DSHS argued to the Board that the Rainier School's 'ultimate mission . . . is to care for the clients.' And, Ahmed's failure to treat patients and staff with dignity and respect hurt patient care and, therefore, constituted gross misconduct. The evidence shows that Ahmed's inappropriate reactions to Nurses Long, Richardson, and Sailsbery affected patient care. A gynecological examination had to be rescheduled and medication and hospitalization of patients was delayed. Thus, the Board's conclusion is neither contrary to the evidence nor arbitrary and capricious.
But Ahmed maintains that the decision is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the evidence because he met the 'standard of care' under the medical malpractice standard. This argument is misplaced. His termination was not based on medical malpractice but on neglect of duty, inefficiency, gross misconduct, and willful violation of rules and regulations.
E. Patient Neglect
Ahmed contends that the evidence is insufficient to conclude that he was unable to work cooperatively with Nurse Long, resulting in 'client neglect.' He argues that the conclusion is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to the evidence.
Rainier School Basic Policy 226.4.1 provides: 'It is the responsibility of Rainier School to provide for each client, an environment free from abuse, neglect, harassment, and intimidation.' 'Neglect' is defined as '{t}he failure to provide training and/or support services which are necessary to maintain physical and mental health or safety.' The Board said, 'The client was prepared to be examined and both Nurse Long and AC Moses were in attendance. However, {Ahmed} chose not to proceed with the examination.' In its findings, the Board also noted that the gynecological examination was performed later that day with a non-nursing staff member. Long testified that he specifically asked Ahmed to help him and 'there was an overt, deliberate refusal to do so.'
As a result, Long did not get the assistance he needed and the examination was performed without nursing assistance. Thus, the Board could appropriately conclude that the patient was not given the services necessary to maintain her physical and mental health or safety.
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.
|
|