Kathryn Knott Case

She will lose any wrongful termination suit because:

1) PA is an at-will state.

2) Standard hospital employment contracts state that any unethical behavior is grounds for termination.

3) Proof of illegal termination requires evidence of the following:

a) discrimination: based on race, gender, age, national origin, religion or disability.

b) retaliation: reporting the employer for breaking the law

c) character defamation: (hehe, she's done enough of that herself)

d) Forcing her to quit by making the work environment unbearable.


Her only chance is discrimination based on gender and that's a pretty tough to prove.

Same goes for you, troll.

I, cruelly, like to imagine the possibility in which she was going to apply to medical school in the near future.

which would be grounds for a lawsuit as well.

Case law says otherwise son.

Haha, do enlighten us as to how you would try to do that!

sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and discrimination based on a non-conviction.

You just can't go around firing people and not hiring or not allowing them in programs for charges unless they've convicted. But arguing this further is kinda pointless, only time will tell.

If any of the following apply, precedent doesn't matter boiiiiiiiii


1) The facts of the cases differ.
2) The decision in the previous case was from a court in a different jurisdiction.
3) The decision in the previous case came from a lower court.
4) There is a compelling public policy reason for not following the previous decision.

They don't have to give a reason.

You can know it's because of X.

They can say you're not our candidate and the conversation is overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

As for jobs, if they're not hiring you due to a conviction, they actually have to let you know, under the law.

edit: not the practicality of proving that now, is another story.

They also didn't cite the results of any internal investigation, though it is probable that they found her in violation of some internal ethics policy. If she wasn't proven to have violated an internal policy, or if there is a policy against being charged with a crime, that is deeply disturbing.

What ethics policy is she in violation of? by being charged with a crime? Won't hold up.

Ethics Committee
New York Methodist Hospital has an interdisciplinary Bioethics Committee that considers all ethics issues arising in the care of patients at New York Methodist Hospital. The members of the Bioethics Committee include physicians, nurses, administrators, social workers, trustees, chaplains, community representatives and, when necessary, an ethicist. The Committee has three principal functions:

Education - The Committee develops programs to educate health care providers and patients concerning ethics issues arising in patient care.
Policy Recommendations - The Committee reviews, discusses and recommends necessary changes to existing policy and, where indicated, initiates, discusses and drafts new policy recommendations concerning ethics issues arising in patient care.
Case Consultation - The Committee acts in an advisory capacity to identify ethics/legal issues, establishing the ethics/legal framework of case discussions, facilitating communication among interested parties and providing the forum for mediating disputes including, but not limited to, Do Not Resuscitate Orders and Health Care Proxies.
Case consultations often revolve around specific patient situations, often involving difficult ethical and/or legal decisions that are referred to the Committee for discussion and/or mediation among interested parties. Patients, family members or health care agents, physicians or any employee of New York Methodist Hospital directly involved in a patient's health care may request a case consultation.

Examples of topics covered in these kinds of consultations include:

Identifying the appropriate decision maker for a patient who cannot make and/or communicate his or her wishes.
Resolving treatment dilemmas when there is a conflict between the physician's suggested treatment plan and the patient's religious or cultural beliefs.
Determining whether a treatment plan is less than optimal because of insurance restrictions and exploring options.
Mediating differences of opinion concerning treatment among family members Discussing the benefits and burdens of refusal of treatment for an incapacitated patient.
Considering withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatments, such as ventilators or feeding tubes.
The consultation process provides assistance in discussing the ethical implications surrounding the patient's care and will offer guidance and support to the individuals involved. Consultations are confidential. The members of the Bioethics Committee who participate in the case consultation will attempt to clarify the issues raised and may make recommendations. However, final decisions still rest with the patient and/or family members.

Your point? There's no evidence of any ethics violations, you're just attempting to defame now.

Evidence? or argument? I can easily argue that based on her releasing the photos of patient documents that their is a concern of patient confidentiality with this particularly employee. I can argue that her posting such photos show a total disregard for ethics. That's the only evidence a hospital committee or state board needs.

Working with patients isn't a legal right, it's a privilege.

EDIT: I'll give u a perfect example of how stupid these rulings can be. My friend told a colleague several years ago he was drinking too much outside of work due to a family passing. The colleague reported him to the medical board. The medical board placed his ability to practice on probation and mandated random drug tests for alcohol.

The state board's argument was that a "possible" drinking problem could carry into work and impair his judgment and therefor place patients at risk.

That's not stupid at all, it's a patient safety concern when a doctor has a substance abuse problem.

Your arguments are moot and wouldn't hold up under review, unless there's a policy or law she's actively violating, which there's no evidence of.

Again she has no legal protections that entitle her to work with patients. Working with patients is a privilege not a legal right.

EDIT: Hold up under review where? Court? Court's don't grant the right to work with patients lol

Working with patients is a privilege not a legal right.

She might have an case for a civil suit against the hospital, if it's just the hospital's ethics committee, with absolutely no involvement from the state. If it's the state she's completely ***.

Again: no code of ethics has been violated, unless you have some proof that hasn't been presented.

Case Consultation - The Committee acts in an advisory capacity to identify ethics/legal issues, establishing the ethics/legal framework of case discussions, facilitating communication among interested parties and providing the forum for mediating disputes including, but not limited to, Do Not Resuscitate Orders and Health Care Proxies.
Case consultations often revolve around specific patient situations, often involving difficult ethical and/or legal decisions that are referred to the Committee for discussion and/or mediation among interested parties. Patients, family members or health care agents, physicians or any employee of New York Methodist Hospital directly involved in a patient's health care may request a case consultation.

so what are you trying to prove here? that you think she may be a vile *** and she should be lynched before she has her chance in court?

or trying to say that she doesn't have a case in civil court for a wrongful termination suit if she's cleared of all charges, not in violation of a law, or written policy by her place of employment?

which is it?

"I think she could be looking at legal liability," says Kaplan, who directs the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center. "If there's enough information in the tweets for others to deduce who's being discussed, that's a clear HIPAA violation."

In this case, "others" include workers at the hospital that employs Knott but who still are not entitled to know medical information that's supposed to be kept confidential by a patient's immediate health-care providers.

Just because, say, a hospital HR employee sees a person wheeled into the ER doesn't mean the HR person is entitled to know that the person fell off a ladder while cleaning gutters in the rain. But the HR person might read a tweet, put 2 and 2 together and - voila! - there goes the patient's privacy.

Then there's the wild unkindness of Knott's tweets. Hospitalized people are not at their best. They're half-dressed, feel like crap and are poked and prodded in their most intimate places by fully clothed people privy to their most personal health information. They're terribly vulnerable, deserving of compassion and respect, even if - yes - their own actions may have contributed to their misery.

For Knott to denigrate them, whether naming them or not, is contemptible and, as Caplan says, "Sick people are not supposed to be used for a hospital worker's entertainment."

Like this ditty, tweeted by Knott on June 17, 2013: "My first gun shot wound! #awesome."

I doubt that the victim concurred.

Knott's career is now at risk, as it should be. She belongs nowhere near the sick, whose trust and dignity she violated every time she publicly blabbed about their condition, how they got that way and what she thought about it.

She ought to be fired.

Stat.

Court's don't grant the right to work with patients. Working with patient's isn't a legal protected right.

Court's don't grant the right to work with patients. Working with patient's isn't a legal protected right. Court's don't grant the right to work with patients. Working with patient's isn't a legal protected right.

Anyways if you're done with the insults here's an interesting read:

who's going on a which hunt?