Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/845926.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
Full Text
1,774 charsWhat Rekha requested we NOT discuss—or at least not make it a big deal, are the issues reported around staff relations. Yes—it was bumpy at first, but they have been working with both Jamie and the team, and despite what Ian is hearing on Mondays, after the last clinic, Rekha pulled the MA in (after hearing it was a horrible day from Ian) and asked. And was told—best clinic yet! [It’s] better. And we are learning how to work together. She thin[k]s fixing the [patient care communication issues] will fix much of this also. During the first week of November 2018, the faculty voted on Dr. Litvack’s appointment renewal for the 2019 academic year with 19 out of 21 voting for renewal. On November 14, 2018, Dr. Yang notified Dr. Futran that he had ongoing difficulties with Dr. Litvack and chart closures at the ESC. That same day, Dr. Litvack met with Dr. Futran who summarized the discussion into five points: (1) research collaborations are going well, (2) spearheading the Department diversity committee, (3) clinical and educational efforts at the VA are going well, (4) practice at ESC has had slow start with several challenges, and (5) the acting assistant professorship cannot be -6- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84592-6-I/7 permanent and there is no clear path to become a “regular” assistant professor in the department. Dr. Futran listed the challenges at ESC: clinical productivity is far below target, issues with inadequate assistance, inconsistent response to nursing staff about patient care, issues implementing clinic procedures, and documentation issues. Dr. Litvack testified that “this wasn’t a conversation. This was him yelling and screaming at me . . . he was just very angry.”