4884-7759-0326.3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

NINA WATSON, M.D., 

Case No.:

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TELEMAMMOGRAPHY SPECIALISTS,

LLC, 

Defendant.

/ 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Nina Watson, M.D. (“Dr. Watson” or “Plaintiff”), sues Defendant, 

Telemammography Specialists, LLC (“TMS,” or, “Defendant”), and in support thereof alleges as 

follows: 

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing and fraudulent misrepresentation. 

2. Dr. Watson is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist with a subspecialty

fellowship training in breast imaging. Dr. Watson is licensed to practice medicine in 14 states, 

including the state of Florida. Dr. Watson often works as a travel physician and independent 

contractor, engaged in identifying and eliminating disparities in breast cancer screening and 

diagnosis via remote teleradiology/telemammography breast imaging services.

3. TMS is in the business of providing professional telemammography services for

imagining facilities throughout the United States, including Florida. TMS provides contracted 

facilities with licensed radiologists who perform their duties on an independent contractor basis, 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 1 of 14
2

like Dr. Watson, and then TMS receives fees from the contracted facilities in return. With respect 

to how independently contracted radiologists like Dr. Watson are paid, TMS provides a set 

schedule of fees to be paid dependent on the type of read (breast ultrasound, bilateral breast MRI, 

etc.) performed by the physician. TMS also controls which independently contracted radiologists 

receive mammographies to read, how many and how often. In other words, TMS completely 

controls the workflow of its independently contracted radiologists like Dr. Watson.

4. TMS began recruiting Dr. Watson in the summer of 2022 to sign an agreement with 

it that would compensate Dr. Watson on a per read basis, dependent upon the type of diagnostic 

imaging she was required to review. During initial discussions, Dr. Watson expressed concerns to 

TMS regarding the pay structure, as she would not enter into an agreement that would provide her 

with less income than she was already regularly receiving.

5. In an effort to induce Dr. Watson to enter into an Agreement, TMS promised Dr. 

Watson a minimum of 70 readings/day which would guarantee her an income of $2,5000.00/day. 

TMS promised Dr. Watson a minimum of 70 readings/day, although it knew that said volume was 

impossible to deliver. See Exhibit A. 

6. After signing the agreement, TMS, on average provided Dr. Watson with 16 

readings a day, which amounted to approximately 20% of the guaranteed income TMS promised 

Dr. Watson. To add insult to injury, TMS materially breached the agreement between the parties 

in various ways, including but not limited to: i) providing inadequate information technology 

services which severely affected Dr. Watson’s ability to provide proper service to patients; ii) 

failing to follow required and proper standards of care; and iii) then terminating the agreement 

without cause absent the required 90 day notice.

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 2 of 14
3

7. With respect to the information technology services, TMS represented to Dr. 

Watson that there were technical issues with her computer, internet, firewall, VPN and/or a 

combination of all of the aforementioned. TMS asked that Dr. Watson make her personally owned 

workstation available for third-party diagnostics and inspections to ensure that there were no 

problems on her end. TMS checked Dr. Watson’s hardware, internet, VPN etc. on several 

occasions but could not find any issues on her end. After days of failed workarounds on the part 

of TMS, Dr. Watson had her own independent third-party verify that there were no issues on her 

end. The tests conducted showed that that the technical issues were in fact caused by TMS’ See

Composite Exhibit B. 

8. Despite this, TMS continuously interrupted Dr. Watson’s work day to perform 

“diagnostics” or “troubleshoot” the technology issues which arose through no fault of Dr. Watson. 

On, September 6, 2022, in complete violation of the Agreement’s terms, which required 90 days 

termination notice in instances without cause, TMS sent Dr. Watson a termination letter citing 

technology issues – which were of TMS’ own making. See Exhibit C. 

9. Dr. Watson now brings this action to recover compensatory damages, lost profits, 

attorneys’ fees, costs, funds expended to perform under the agreement and punitive damages in an 

amount no less than $195,140.00.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

10. Plaintiff is an individual sui juris who resides in Broward County, Florida, holds a 

Florida medical license and performs work in Broward County, Florida.

11. Defendant TMS is a Georgia limited liability company whose publicly listed 

business address in located in Decatur, Georgia. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 3 of 14
4

12. This Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332 (a)(1) 

because the parties are completely diverse and because the amount at issue here exceeds 

$75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

13. This Court can assert in personam jurisdiction over TMS because doing so 

comports with Florida’s long-arm statute by virtue of Defendants’ reaching into Florida to 

regularly conduct business (TMS regularly contracts with Florida physicians to provide services 

inside the state of Florida, including but not limited to Dr. Watson), by soliciting Dr. Watson’s 

business, by requiring Dr. Watson to perform her professional duties for Florida residents, by 

requiring Dr. Watson to obtain a Florida medical license, by committing tortious conduct in 

Florida, among other things. Defendant TMS satisfies the minimum contacts test for the same 

reasons. 

14. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 

§1391 because Plaintiff resides in this district, her principal place of business is in this district and 

a substantial portion of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 

15. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been performed, satisfied, 

or waived. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

16. At the behest of Martha Garrison, on or around June 17, 2022, Daniel Hickman of 

MedAtlantic contacted Dr. Watson to gauge her interest in remote telemammography work with 

TMS. Dr. Watson expressed interest but stated that her acceptance of a position would be 

contingent upon a high volume of reads, to guarantee a minimum monthly income level. To that 

effect, Daniel Hickman, told Dr. Watson that there would be “Plenty of volume for you...”. See

Exhibit D

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 4 of 14
5

17. On or around June 22, 2022, Martha Garrison, the owner of TMS reached out to 

Dr. Watson, after explaining that she was referred to contact Dr. Watson through Daniel Hickman 

of MedAtlantic, to recruit her to provide professional telemammography services for imagining 

facilities throughout the United States, including Florida. See Exhibit E.

18. After email communications, Dr. Watson became interested and took a call with 

Martha Garrison to discuss the terms of working with TMS and to make clear Dr. Watson’s 

compensation requirements. During this call, Martha Garrison explained that Dr. Watson would 

be compensated on a per read basis and that TMS had an enormous amount of volume. 

19. Dr. Watson was explicitly clear with Martha Garrison that she was uninterested in 

any type of working relationship that would make her less than $2,500/day. In an effort to induce 

Dr. Watson to enter into an agreement with TMS, Martha Garrison promised Dr. Watson a, 

“minimum of 70 reads per day” which would render Dr. Watson at least a $2,500/day income. 

Martha Garrison promised Dr. Watson at least 70 reads per day although she knew that TMS did 

not have the ability to fulfill this promise.

20. Martha Garrison’s purposeful deception of Dr. Watson on behalf of TMS, is 

consistent with TMS’ pattern of unfair and deceptive trade practices that it takes in an attempt to 

secure an unearned market advantage.

21. As a medical staffing agency, both doctors (Dr. Watson for example) and hospitals 

are consumers of TMS placement services. TMS works as the middle man placing work from 

hospitals with doctors. TMS benefits by securing as many doctors with as many state licenses as 

possible for contracted periods of time, because that way, TMS can in turn advertise to hospitals 

that it has a wide and extensive network of doctors to handle large workloads throughout the 

country.

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 5 of 14
6

22. Dr. Watson’s services are in extraordinarily high demand nationwide, so working 

with TMS was not one of Dr. Watson’s only options. TMS was competing against many similar 

companies which provide the same services and excellent compensation packages. 

23. Martha Garrison and TMS’ knew that without promising Dr. Watson her requested 

compensation package that her professional services would not be able to be secured. Absent TMS 

intentional misrepresentation, Dr. Watson would not have entered into any agreement with TMS.

24. Based on Martha Garrison and TMS’ purposeful misrepresentation to Dr. Watson, 

she entered into the Agreement to provide telemammography services on behalf of TMS on July 

11, 2022. See Exhibit A. 

25. Pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Agreement, “Either party shall have the right to 

terminate this Agreement without cause upon ninety (90) days prior written notice.” See Exhibit 

A. 

26. In preparation for providing services under the Agreement, Dr. Watson spent 

upwards of $3,000.00 in out of pocket expenses, including but not limited to Three Palm software, 

Dragon voice dictation software, among other necessities required by TMS. 

27. Once acquired, a TMS contracted IT specialist named “Rob” began setting up Dr. 

Watson’s workstation so that she could perform services under the agreement. During the set up 

process, Dr. Watson also had to allow Three Palms IT Specialists to access her workstation as 

well. When Rob would need access to Dr. Watson’s computer he would need to do so remotely. 

This was extremely sensitive not only because Dr. Watson’s workstation was owned by her and 

cost in excess of $30,000.00, but because the computer hard drive and files contained therein had 

many sensitive documents, including those protected by HIPAA. In addition, while Rob or any 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 6 of 14
7

other IT specialist was troubleshooting or performing any services to the software or security 

features required by TMS, Dr. Watson could not perform any work.

28. Within the first several weeks it became clear that TMS could not deliver the 

promised 70 readings per day and had a host of technological issues which exacerbated matters.

29. On August 2, 2022, Lindy Minore of TMS, responded to Dr. Watson’s inquiry to 

her regarding the lack of readings she was receiving and the technology issues. Dr. Watson, stated 

that “I am trying to find the right rhythm of pushing the images to you...” and then promised Dr. 

Watson an additional 30 screens by the end of her shift, at least 50 for her following shift, and 

then suggested some workarounds for the Three Palms software. See Exhibit F. Unfortunately, 

TMS’ false promise was not fulfilled.

30. After a little longer than a week with no improvement to the promised number of 

readings that she received, Dr. Watson reached out to TMS once again to address the issue. In 

response, Martha Garrison, followed up with Dr. Watson on August 11, 2022 by text, again 

reaffirming her promise to give Dr. Watson at least 70 readings: “You should have received a lot 

of screeners to read today. I told Lindy to give you at least 70 mammos today.” See Exhibit G. 

31. Not only was there a complete and purposeful miscommunication on the part of 

TMS with respect to the number of readings Dr. Watson would receive, her work and off days 

were repeatedly interrupted by TMS and Three Palms IT staff to work on “technological issues”. 

Any time either party worked on Dr. Watson’s workstation remotely, she would have to stop, save 

her files in draft and then wait until the IT specialist was complete to resume her work hours later.

32. TMS staff often accessed Dr. Watson’s workstation remotely without her 

permission. This caused numerous issues, including but not limited to causing Dr. Watson to lose 

work she had begun, software and hardware settings on her sensitive workstation would be altered 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 7 of 14
8

without her permission and in some instances hardware would stop working altogether. See

Composite Exhibit H. 

33. Upon information and belief, once Dr. Watson’s initial follow up with TMS 

regarding the lack of readings, TMS used “technological difficulties” as a smokescreen to cover 

its refusal to provide Dr. Watson with 70 readings a day and as a covert form of harassment to 

induce her to terminate the Agreement between the parties. 

34. TMS required access to Dr. Watson’s workstation or accessed her workstation on 

a repeated basis from late July through August. See Composite Exhibit H. Some days, TMS 

would request to access Dr. Watson’s personal work station multiple times in a day. Id. Every time 

TMS required access, Dr. Watson would have to stop reading scans and sometimes was delayed 

for hours with no compensation – which TMS knew and did purposefully. TMS would often, 

“coincidentally” request access to Dr. Watson’s computer when they knew she was scheduled to 

be on duty reading. Id. There were also times, despite Dr. Watson’s prior warning not to, that TMS 

would access her workstation without permission causing her to lose drafts of scans that she was 

working on and interfering with her workstation settings. Id. 

35. TMS’ repeated requests to access Dr. Watson’s workstation, despite the fact that 

all independent third-party tests she had conducted showed that her internet and system was fine, 

led Dr. Watson to have serious concerns regarding TMS’ intentions. At one point, someone at the 

behest of TMS and without Dr. Watson’s permission, contacted her internet provided and 

attempted to change the settings. Dr. Watson developed the legitimate belief that TMS would 

intentionally or had been intentionally disrupting her workstation and or its ability to receive 

readings through the third-party software installed at TMS behest, as a means of retaliation and/or 

to cover up the fact that TMS either did not have the ability or desire to fulfill its promise to Dr. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 8 of 14
9 

Watson to provide her with a minimum of 70 readings per day. Often, Dr. Watson would return to 

her workstation to find that screeners assigned to her queue would be removed without any 

explanation. Upon questioning, TMS’ representatives would state that her workstation was offline 

when it was not. See Exhibit J. 

36. To add insult to injury, TMS had tremendous issues with respect to standard of care

concerns. Often, TMS’ had limited or no access to a patients current and prior imaging, ultrasounds 

and pathology reports – which put the patients at risk and prevented Dr. Watson from providing 

optimal service. See Exhibit I. 

37. Based on TMS, actions and its refusal and or inability to send Dr. Watson the

promised number of readings, her average total dropped to 16 screenings per day and income per 

hour fell to $20/hr. Therefore, on August 23, 2022, consistent with Section 8.1 of the Agreement, 

Dr. Watson gave TMS her 90 day notice of termination. 

38. The following two weeks consisted of a continuation on the part of TMS to-under

deliver on the number of screenings given to Dr. Watson. Finally, on September 6, 2022, TMS’ 

terminated the Agreement, without cause effective immediately with Dr. Watson due to 

“technology issues” – TMS actions constitute a material breach of Article 8 of the Agreement, as 

TMS was not terminating the relationship for cause. See Exhibit C. 

39. On or around September 6, 2022, Dr. Watson sent TMS a formal demand seeking

the $195,140.00 in compensatory damages and lost profits, not including attorneys’ fees, costs and 

funds already paid. On or around September 16, 2022, TMS sent a formal letter rejecting Dr. 

Watson’s demand. 

40. All conditions precedent prior to bringing to this action have been performed,

occurred, satisfied, waived, or excused. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 9 of 14
10

COUNT I – Breach of Contract

41. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 40 as if 

fully stated herein. 

42. On July 11, 2022, the parties entered into a binding and enforceable contract. See

Exhibit A. 

43. Pursuant to the Agreement, Dr. Watson was to provide professional 

telemammography services as an independent contractor, on behalf of TMS and TMS was to 

provide Dr. Watson with mammography screenings to read. Further, pursuant to Article 8 of the 

Agreement, any party could terminate the Agreement without cause with 90 days’ notice. 

44. Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to provide the contractually required 

30-days’ notice to Plaintiff; then refused to compensate Plaintiff for the services she had contracted 

to perform, in further breach of the Agreement. 

45. In addition, Defendant also breached the Agreement by failing to provide adequate 

technology and/or systems that it had contractually promised Dr. Watson which would allow her 

to perform her professional services.

46. Defendants breach of the Agreement with Plaintiff has directly and proximately 

caused Plaintiff to suffer damages, including but not limited to, lost profits, compensatory damages 

and for work that Plaintiff would have otherwise accepted or had to forego absent Defendant’s 

breach.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against 

Defendant and award damages, including those for lost profits, compensatory damage, pre and 

post judgment interest and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 10 of 14
11

COUNT II – Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

47. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 40 as if 

fully stated herein.

48. On July 11, 2022, the parties entered into a binding and enforceable contract. See

Exhibit A.

49. Pursuant to the Agreement, Dr. Watson was to provide professional 

telemammography services as an independent contractor on behalf of TMS and TMS was to 

provide Dr. Watson with screenings to read. TMS had full control and autonomy of which 

screenings Dr. Watson received and when. See Exhibit A at Section 1.1. Further, pursuant to 

Article 8 of the Agreement, any party could terminate the Agreement without cause with 90 days’ 

notice

50. Based upon the Agreement Dr. Watson was required to work a minimum of three 

days per week, covering live screenings 5 hours on days worked. 

51. TMS breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing (whether 

intentionally or simply due to TMS technology issues as referenced supra) to provide Dr. Watson 

any meaningful number of readings during the days she worked. TMS also breached the covenant 

of good faith and fair dealing by cancelling the agreement without the requisite notice and citing 

technological issues as the reason, despite the fact that TMS was responsible for the issues. 

52. To the extent Defendant’s behavior is not an explicit and express breach of the 

Agreement, TMS’ conduct is a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 

53. As a direct and proximate results of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and 

will continue to suffer damages. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 11 of 14
12

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against 

Defendant and award damages, including those for lost profits, compensatory damages, pre and 

post-judgment interest and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 

COUNT III – Fraudulent Misrepresentation

54. Plaintiff adopts and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 40 as if 

fully stated herein.

55. On July 11, 2022, the parties entered into a valid and enforceable contract, the 

Agreement.

56. During the course of negotiations between Plaintiff and Defendant, Dr. Watson was 

explicitly clear with Martha Garrison that she was uninterested in any type of working relationship 

that would make her less than $2,500/day. In an effort to induce Dr. Watson to enter into an 

agreement with TMS, Martha Garrison promised Dr. Watson a “minimum of 70 reads per day” 

which would render Dr. Watson at least a $2,500/day income. TMS and Martha Garrison promised 

Dr. Watson at least 70 reads per day although she knew that TMS did not have the ability to fulfill 

this promise.

57. Defendant was fully aware that the representation was false. 

58. Defendant’s fraudulent statements were intended to induce Plaintiff to enter into 

the Agreement and provide her medical services.

59. Defendant’s statements and actions caused damage to Plaintiff as Plaintiff acted in 

reliance upon Defendant’s misrepresentations and set her schedule (as well as forewent other 

equally high paying opportunities for the time period) aside to perform the services pursuant to the 

Agreement. 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 12 of 14
13 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against 

Defendant and award damages, including those for lost profits, compensatory damage, pre and 

post judgment interest and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. 

Dated: December 8, 2022 

LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff 

110 Southeast Sixth Street, Suite 2600 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

Telephone: (954) 728-1280 

Facsimile: (954) 678-4090

E-Service: ftlemaildesig@lewisbrisbois.com

By: s/Ishmael A. Green

Steven Holtzman (FBN: 339334) 

steven.holtzman@lewisbrisbois.com 

Ishmael A. Green (FBN: 109100) 

ishmael.green@lewisbrisbois.com

linda.yun@lewisbrisbois.com 

Respectfully submitted,

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 13 of 14
VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1746 

I, Nina Watson, M.D., declare as follows: 

1. I am the Plaintiff in the present case and a citizen of the United States and a resident 

of Broward County, Florida. 

2. I have personal knowledge of myself, activities and intentions, including those set 

out in the foregoing Verified Complaint and if called on to testify I would competently testify to 

the matters stated herein. 

3. I verify under penalty of perjury under the law of the United States of America that 

the factual statements in this Verified Complaint concerning myself, my activities, and my 

intentions are true and correct as are the factual statements concerning the Defendant, its activities 

and 

~ 

its intentions. 

~ Nina Watson, M.D. 

12/08/2022 

Date: 

14 

Case 0:22-cv-62303-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/08/2022 Page 14 of 14