The current approach of the Charleston Area Medical Center's public relations smear machine demands that I address certain matters that have been distorted in an apparent attempt to malign jurors; continue to defame my client, R. Edward Hamrick Jr., M.D.; and undermine the legal system.
The current approach of the Charleston Area Medical Center's public relations smear machine demands that I address certain matters that have been distorted in an apparent attempt to malign jurors; continue to defame my client, R. Edward Hamrick Jr., M.D.; and undermine the legal system. As a lawyer, I have a duty to speak to protect my client and to uphold the quality and administration of justice.
Dr. Hamrick is a surgeon who has practiced in this community for over 25 years. He is committed to providing his patients high quality health care. He has never paid a penny for a malpractice claim. Dr. Hamrick sought to take advantage of new public policy initiatives in West Virginia that permitted physicians to have their own actuarially sound self-funded liability insurance program rather than purchasing insurance in the marketplace. That was the genesis of his problems with CAMC, which apparently did not subscribe to the legislative public policy. The dispute culminated in a lawsuit and a verdict for Dr. Hamrick.
With that background, I am compelled to respond to CAMC board member William R. McDavid's Feb. 24 commentary published in the Gazette. Mr. McDavid criticizes the recent jury findings against CAMC. The statement from Mr. McDavid, who was not present at the trial, sounds remarkably like that of CAMC attorney Bob O'Neil's opening and closing remarks at the trial. Once the transcripts are available, it will be up to the public to determine whose words they actually are. Regardless, the jury, based upon all the evidence, soundly rejected those words.
Mr. McDavid's comments appeared alongside those of John H. Schmidt III, MD. Dr. Schmidt's comments were in accord with those of Mr. McDavid. For the record, Dr. Schmidt's letter of support for CAMC comes from a physician whose group receives an annual fee of over $1 million dollars to provide emergency coverage for CAMC.
The jury in the case was able to see, face-to-face, the administrators and lawyers at CAMC who made decisions and wrote letters concerning Dr. Hamrick. They heard extensive testimony regarding how CAMC and its agents treated Dr. Hamrick for over three years. Why haven't the CAMC Board, Mr. McDavid and Dr. Schmidt investigated the disgraceful treatment of Dr. Hamrick as carefully as the jury did? Why have they continued to fight Dr. Hamrick when, to date, they have lost every single appeal to the Supreme Court?
This ongoing campaign from CAMC comes immediately after a jury finding against CAMC for both compensatory and punitive damages. CAMC's campaign continues to smear the reputation of my client, Dr Hamrick, as well as to question the verdict and hard work of the jury, who sat for eight days and reviewed hundreds of pages of documentation from both sides. What CAMC's current public relations campaign refuses to acknowledge is that the jury found malicious, willful, vexatious and oppressive conduct on the part of CAMC after hearing all of the evidence from both sides.
Some of the pertinent facts that Mr. McDavid left out of his piece are that the Medical Staff Executive Committee had voted on certain resolutions, that the minutes of their meeting reflected those resolutions, and that the CAMC administration and/or in-house lawyers changed these documents before they submitted them to the CAMC Board of Trustees. According to the minutes, Mr. McDavid was present when the Medical Staff Executive Committee passed the resolution that was altered before it went to the CAMC Board of Trustees. The jury had both sets of minutes and the actual resolution for their consideration.
In addition, when CAMC's own expert initially determined that Dr. Hamrick's self-insurance fund was sound, CAMC had their expert change the report.
The current approach of the Charleston Area Medical Center's public relations smear machine demands that I address certain matters that have been distorted in an apparent attempt to malign jurors; continue to defame my client, R. Edward Hamrick Jr., M.D.; and undermine the legal system. As a lawyer, I have a duty to speak to protect my client and to uphold the quality and administration of justice.
Dr. Hamrick is a surgeon who has practiced in this community for over 25 years. He is committed to providing his patients high quality health care. He has never paid a penny for a malpractice claim. Dr. Hamrick sought to take advantage of new public policy initiatives in West Virginia that permitted physicians to have their own actuarially sound self-funded liability insurance program rather than purchasing insurance in the marketplace. That was the genesis of his problems with CAMC, which apparently did not subscribe to the legislative public policy. The dispute culminated in a lawsuit and a verdict for Dr. Hamrick.
With that background, I am compelled to respond to CAMC board member William R. McDavid's Feb. 24 commentary published in the Gazette. Mr. McDavid criticizes the recent jury findings against CAMC. The statement from Mr. McDavid, who was not present at the trial, sounds remarkably like that of CAMC attorney Bob O'Neil's opening and closing remarks at the trial. Once the transcripts are available, it will be up to the public to determine whose words they actually are. Regardless, the jury, based upon all the evidence, soundly rejected those words.
Mr. McDavid's comments appeared alongside those of John H. Schmidt III, MD. Dr. Schmidt's comments were in accord with those of Mr. McDavid. For the record, Dr. Schmidt's letter of support for CAMC comes from a physician whose group receives an annual fee of over $1 million dollars to provide emergency coverage for CAMC.
The jury in the case was able to see, face-to-face, the administrators and lawyers at CAMC who made decisions and wrote letters concerning Dr. Hamrick. They heard extensive testimony regarding how CAMC and its agents treated Dr. Hamrick for over three years. Why haven't the CAMC Board, Mr. McDavid and Dr. Schmidt investigated the disgraceful treatment of Dr. Hamrick as carefully as the jury did? Why have they continued to fight Dr. Hamrick when, to date, they have lost every single appeal to the Supreme Court?
This ongoing campaign from CAMC comes immediately after a jury finding against CAMC for both compensatory and punitive damages. CAMC's campaign continues to smear the reputation of my client, Dr Hamrick, as well as to question the verdict and hard work of the jury, who sat for eight days and reviewed hundreds of pages of documentation from both sides. What CAMC's current public relations campaign refuses to acknowledge is that the jury found malicious, willful, vexatious and oppressive conduct on the part of CAMC after hearing all of the evidence from both sides.
Some of the pertinent facts that Mr. McDavid left out of his piece are that the Medical Staff Executive Committee had voted on certain resolutions, that the minutes of their meeting reflected those resolutions, and that the CAMC administration and/or in-house lawyers changed these documents before they submitted them to the CAMC Board of Trustees. According to the minutes, Mr. McDavid was present when the Medical Staff Executive Committee passed the resolution that was altered before it went to the CAMC Board of Trustees. The jury had both sets of minutes and the actual resolution for their consideration.
In addition, when CAMC's own expert initially determined that Dr. Hamrick's self-insurance fund was sound, CAMC had their expert change the report.
CAMC's administrators and/or in-house lawyers essentially "cooked" the documents. This is but a small example of the behavior that caused a diligent jury to find that punitive damages were necessary to wake up the CAMC administration. Punitive damages are jury awards made in addition to and separate from compensatory damages. When punitives are awarded, it is because the jury finds the defendant's behavior particularly egregious or in willful disregard of the consequences. In making an award of punitives, a jury has concluded that it is necessary to send a message that the type of behavior at issue should not be tolerated. The goal is to change behavior.
CAMC's Board of Trustees continues to blame Dr. Hamrick. In the Feb. 26 Gazette, "CAMC board Chairman Richard Sinclair said he begged Dr. R.E. Hamrick to give the hospital more time to review the surgeon's plan to fund himself against malpractice." Begged him? Excuse me, but I respectfully submit that the testimony at the trial contradicts that.
When Dr. Hamrick asked Dr. Glenn Crotty, CAMC Chief Operating Officer, what his options were, Dr. Crotty said, under oath, "Well, you can get insurance. You can become an employee of the hospital. You could have been a faculty member and probably still could be a faculty member of WVU or you could sue me or sue the hospital."
In spite of CAMC's smokescreen to mask the facts and lay blame elsewhere, it should be very clear that the CAMC administration has been found guilty of malicious, oppressive, wanton, willful or reckless conduct toward Dr. Hamrick.
The media have reported that CAMC's first layer of insurance is $5 million. If that is true, why, to date, has CAMC's board, Mr. McDavid and Dr. Schmidt failed to advise why the administration and its lawyers did not settle this matter prior to trial and well below its first level of insurance, which it had the ability to do? While settlement discussions are generally private, CAMC has also suggested to the public that Dr. Hamrick was unwilling to settle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dr. Hamrick was willing to settle for less than CAMC's purported first layer of insurance. Yet, the administration and/or their lawyers decided to put CAMC finances at risk. Doing so was not Dr. Hamrick's decision. Dr. Hamrick simply wanted to be entitled to practice with his sound, self-funded insurance without continued harassment.
One thing is certain. The public - the real stakeholders in CAMC - deserves better. We are long overdue for changes in the CAMC administration.
Segal is a Charleston attorney representing Dr. R. Edward Hamrick.
Post a comment