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

Full Text

1,454 chars

a. Her clinical productivity is far below target and has thus far yielded few
surgical cases. This is despite a mandate to see general
otolaryngology patients and necessity to fill her templates.
b. She has had significant challenges with her support team, specifically
medical assistants and nurses. This includes poor communication,
non-collaborative attitudes, poor responsiveness to patient care issues
when not on site, shift of physician responsibilities to staff, and lack of
developing a system with them for timely communication.
c. Dr. Litvack’s subspecialty is rhinology for which we have a division
director, Dr. Greg Davis. She has tried to implement procedures
unique to this subspecialty without communicating and receiving
guidance through division channels resulting in dissatisfaction among
patients, staff, and Dr. Litvack herself.
d. She is consistently not closing her encounters in a timely manner.

3. Dr. Litvack’s patient care decisions have come in to question through
our quality improvement process resulting in a lack of confidence of
her decision members to deliver tertiary rhinology care . . .

4. Dr. Litvack is currently an acting assistant professor in the department.
Based on the above issues, there is no clear path for her to become a
“regular” assistant professor and further activity will not change this.

Dr. Futran testified that a factor in his nonrenewal decision was his personal evaluation

of Dr. Litvack: