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
1,782 charsDr. Litvack testified that she did not remember speaking with Dr. Futran about her productivity being below target before this meeting. Instead, Dr. Litvack testified she was told in early 2018 by Michelle Doyle, vice chair of administration for the Department, that there was no problem with her RVUs. 3 Dr. Litvack testified about her productivity at the ESC: I was disproportionately required to see non-surgical and medical otology patients that are important for the system, important for the care of patients, but do not provide the same RVU value. I was disproportionately required to take care of these medical and medical otology patients, the non-surgical patients, when I moved to the [ESC], so much so that patients that came in for sinus care could not make appointments with me and were often redirected towards Dr. Humphreys. Dr. Litvack also pointed to the lack of experienced support staff available to her at the ESC which made it harder for her to get documentation done on time. For example, “Dr. Humphreys had a well-trained medical assistant who understood not just otolaryngology, but rhinology, and that he had access to an onsite nurse. I had an untrained medical assistant with no otolaryngology, or very little otolaryngology experience, and no nurse.” Additionally, Dr. Litvack claims the surgery scheduler 3 Relative value units (RVUs) are used to measure physician productivity. -7- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84592-6-I/8 disproportionately favored male colleagues Dr. Davis and Dr. Humphreys in terms of response time, attitude, and patient care. Dr. Litvack testified on why she tried to change her clinic schedule template to send sinus surgery patients to her as a priority: