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

Heading: Radiation Safety

Text: 22 There is no dispute as to the substance of the plaintiff's telephone conversation with Dr. Hendrick. See IV Aplt. App. 307-09; cf. Waters, 511 U.S. at 668. Several of the facts asserted by Dr. Craven in that conversation, however, were controverted by Dr. Johnson. He testified that the incident at issue did not involve a spilt infusion of intravenous radioactive iodine, cf. IV Aplt. App. 307 (testimony of Dr. Craven), but rather, a patient's reaction to radioactive iodine in capsule form. Id. at 686 ([W]hat had happened was that the patient had thrown up.). Dr. Johnson also clarified the procedures to be followed when a radiation incident occurred. He explained that the hospital maintained a call-down list of several people including him that could be called upon to respond in the event of a radiation emergency. Id. at 680. Regardless, inadvertently false speech on a matter of public concern may still provide a basis for a retaliatory discharge claim. See, e.g., Pickering, 391 U.S. at 572-73. 23 Even assuming that the call did involve matters of public concern, UH's interests in efficiency far outweigh the plaintiff's interests, as a citizen, in commenting on the radiation incident at issue to Dr. Hendrick. From the record before us, it appears that Plaintiff's conversation with Dr. Hendrick had a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, . . . interfere[d] with the regular operation of the enterprise, and impede[d] the performance of the speaker's duties . . . . Rankin, 483 U.S. at 388. As noted, it is essential that UH and HSC employees maintain collegial relationships so that they can work with, rather than against, one another in solving problems that affect both institutions. See IV Aplt. App. 736-37. According to Ms. Sens, major problems develop[ed] between UH Administration and the Health Sciences Center because of [Dr. Craven's] communications with Ed Hendrick[] concerning the radiation safety officer. Id. at 1114. Ms. Cashman testified that the plaintiff's conversation with Dr. Hendrick would lead to misunderstandings between UH and HSC's radiology department and call Ms. Cashman's credibility as a manager into question. Id. at 845-47. 24 With respect to the plaintiff's own performance, Ms. Sens testified that she had explicitly advised Dr. Craven to make her concerns known to Joyce Cashman and then let it rest, id. at 553, but that Dr. Craven would just not give it up, id., and that her persistence eventually went from annoying to destructive. Id. at 574. After Dr. Craven's telephone call to Dr. Hendrick, Ms. Sens realized that if Dr. Craven was to continue in her position, she would require [v]ery intense supervision on a [d]ay to day basis, obligating Ms. Sens to constantly check[] what she had said [and] who she had spoken to, a very inappropriate level of supervision for a manager. Id. at 570-71. Simply put, Ms. Sens felt that she could no longer trust the plaintiff's judgment. Id. at 571. We find the foregoing evidence sufficient to tip the Pickering balance in favor of the hospital with respect to the plaintiff's telephone call to Dr. Hendrick. 9 Accordingly, that call provides no basis for Dr. Craven's 1983 claim.