Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,740 chars

Dr. Litvack provides more than opinion or conclusory statements in rebuttal to

UW’s purported reasons for termination—instead she provides specific facts. For

example, in response to UW’s assertion that she refused to see nonspecialty patients

and her productivity was far below target, Dr. Litvack explained that she did not refuse

to see patients but that because she was scheduled disproportionately with nonsurgical

and lower RVU generating patients, sinus patients were being diverted to male

-26-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/27

colleagues and so she tried to change her schedule to prioritize sinus surgery patients

(presumably to generate more RVUs). E-mails between ESC staff and management

confirm that a male colleague’s practice intentionally focused on sinus surgery, while Dr.

Litvack’s practice focused on general ENT problems. Compounding this issue, at least

at first, were referrals being missed because her photo was missing from the UW

website thus causing scheduler confusion. Other communications between Dr. Futran

and others reveal that scheduling and productivity were not necessarily within Dr.

Litvack’s control.

In response to the open encounters issue, Dr. Litvack stated that it was hard to

get her records signed in time due to lack of resources as in quantity and quality of staff

in comparison to support given to her male colleague. The otolaryngology nurse did not

work on Dr. Litvack’s clinic day but the record shows time and resources were spent by

Dr. Litvack and others to train staff and work together. The record also shows that

relations between Dr. Litvack and the staff were improving and Dr. Litvack explained