A gastroenterologist who says she was fired from a South Dakota clinic for complaining of verbal harassment and reporting misdiagnoses and unnecessary colonoscopies may take her case to trial after receiving clearance from a federal judge.
JoAnn Ormand, MD, is suing the Sanford Clinic of Sioux Falls for damages to be determined by a jury because she claims her former employers retaliated against her after she reported problems at the clinic. The facility disputes Dr. Ormand's claims and has asked to have the case thrown out. In late May, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division, determined that the case should go to a state trial court. The federal court also ruled that Dr. Ormand's claims of gender discrimination and disparate pay should be considered in federal court since they are federal issues.
Dr. Ormand was hired in August 2004 and fired in July 2008, according to court documents. A month after her termination, Dr. Ormand filed a lawsuit claiming that the non-compete clause in her contract, which excluded her from practicing within 20 miles of the clinic, was unenforceable. The clinic released Dr. Ormand from the non-compete contract more than a year after she filed the complaint, and the judge dismissed the case as moot.
The federal court ruled that even though the clinic withdrew its claims to the non-compete contract, Dr. Ormand still may be entitled to damages for 13 months between the time she was fired and when the clinic withdrew its non-compete claims. "She was unable to find a job," said Dr. Ormand's attorney John R. Hughes. The non-compete issue will be decided by the state court. This year Dr. Ormand took a job at the Sioux Falls VA Medical Center.
The same day the state judge dismissed the non-compete case, Dr. Ormand resubmitted her complaint against the clinic, this time alleging that she had been fired in retaliation for complaining of verbal harassment and reporting misdiagnoses and unnecessary colonoscopies to the facility's administration. "While attempting to get her employer to follow its own policies, she was fired," said Mr. Hughes.
Dr. Ormand also claimed that the clinic committed fraud when it sent her and a pair of GI physicians to resolve their conflicts via "outside mediation" by an attorney who was also the husband of one of Sanford's corporate attorneys and a partner in the law firm that represented the clinic. The attorney's wife was in charge of investigating policy and code of conduct violations, such as those brought up by Dr. Ormand, according to court documents.
Dr. Ormand claims that the mediator misrepresented himself and encouraged her to "vent," when in fact the information would later be used to damage her, according to court documents. Two attorneys representing the Sanford Clinic did not respond to a request for comment on the case.
In addition, Dr. Ormand filed a sexual discrimination claim against Sanford, alleging that her part-time salary of $262,500 for 2 years and the fact that she had to pay 75% of the overhead associated with her cases was less than a male colleague in the same part-time position who had to pay only 37% of his overhead.
In court documents, the Sanford Clinic claims that Dr. Ormand has no case regarding any of the counts and that the matter should be dismissed. After Dr. Ormand filed the complaint that included sexual discrimination, a federal issue, Sanford asked that the case go to federal court. The federal judge determined that the majority of the case should stay in state court and ordered both parties meet before June 28 to discuss arrangements for a settlement or to proceed with the trial.
Kent Steinriede
