Opinion ID: 161452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Radiation Safety Officer

Text: 5 Finally, Dr. Craven also clashed with her supervisors regarding the hospital's Radiation Safety Officer (RSO), Dr. Tim Johnson. In addition to her concerns about Dr. Johnson's performance, e.g., id. at 294, 550-51, 1104, the plaintiff disagreed with the placement of the RSO position in the hospital's overall organizational structure. Id. at 398-99, 871-72. Plaintiff was advised to express these concerns to Joyce Cashman her second-line supervisor and the hospital's then-Chief Operating Officer. Id. at 733-34. A few days later, Dr. Craven called Dr. Ed Hendrick, then-Chief of HSC's Radiological Sciences Division, to discuss her concerns about the RSO. 3 Id. at 306-11. Dr. Craven told Dr. Hendrick that nurses had been unable to reach Dr. Johnson to respond to a radioactive iodine spill in a chemotherapy patient's room. The plaintiff noted that another employee had responded to the incident, but expressed concern as to who should be called upon in the future. 6 On November 3, 1994, Ms. Sens posted a note on Dr. Craven's door, informing her that her communications with Ed Hendrick[] had caused major problems . . . between UH Administration and the Health Sciences Center and requesting copies of all notes, E-Mails, and the context of all phone messages that you have had with [Dr. Hendrick] concerning the role of the RSO. Id. at 1114. Plaintiff responded in writing, id. at 1115, and met with Ms. Sens the following day. After initially placing Dr. Craven on leave, Ms. Sens terminated Plaintiff's employment on November 8, 1994, due to her lack of professional behavior and insubordination. Id. at 1102. The termination letter described Dr. Craven's conversation with Dr. Hendrick as extremely inappropriate and in direct conflict with the information you [had] received from Joyce Cashman, Vice President of Operations, telling you to address issues regarding the radiation safety officer directly to her. Id.; see supra, note 3. Plaintiff's internal appeal was unsuccessful. Id. at 1051, 1116-19.