A hospital bullies a physician due to her disability

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's crazy how a single month can somehow alter decades of your life.
Oh good. Yeah I think we were pretty happy :)

Yeah, I really have no regrets about where I ended up and what I'm doing now, and I really can't see myself ever being a general surgeon, but who knows. I didn't take neuro until my very last rotation of medical school. Perhaps if I saw that early instead of psych I would have done that instead. (ironically enough, the class behind in school was actually not required to take neuro because JMC was transitioning from neuro being a M4 to an M3 rotation.) I really like psych and I hit the specialty at a particularly good time, and I'm not sure I'd have even considered it if not for a really awful initial surgical rotation.

Who knows though. Perhaps if I took the acceptance to the other school, my rotation experience would have been different and I'd be finishing up an ortho or ENT rotation right now.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Definitely, BUT if the culture is such that MS/Residents have to keep their mouths shut otherwise they are whiny babies then that's never going to happen.

The culture needs to change. It is OK for doctors to complain.

RE: the culture

Someone I know sustained a severe injury from training.

When it was just first starting, they were starting to have symptoms, and they were starting to show despite their best efforts to hide them.

They were just on the verge of saying something the resident in charge to ask for help, but they were beat to it when the resident told them that they noticed, and for the sake of their grades and career they better get better at hiding them. It wasn't a threat. As far as they were concerned, they were looking out for this person.

They went to the Dean of the medical school to see what could be done. They were told the only way to be accommodated would be time off but it would extend their graduation date and it would negatively impact their career and the Match. That they needed to do WHATEVER it took to graduate on time if they could continue to pass their rotations.

They were thankful they already liked the taste of blood, because biting their cheek until it bled, became a common coping mechanism for trying to hide the pain they were in.

Let's talk about the fact that for anything like this that comes up, the first offer is time off, despite the administration being fully aware that aside from not passing things in medical school, extending the grad date is one of the most harmful things for a student's career. The best thing is to provide reasonable accommodations for the student to continue on and succeed.

When you basically go to the admin with a request to go to a doctor appt, and you get met with "well maybe you need time off, but it will extend your grad date..." I mean, what is the message here? It's a nonsensical reaction, which is why I assert there's a different message.

Suck it up or **** your career. Which is such a ridiculous thing to be the knee jerk reaction to any expression of medical need. The message is clear - work work work and just suffer. No one cares. That's clear here not only in my little story, but this thread and all others like it.

It didn't help either that despite doing their best this person was so busy that even spending a lot of time reading and self-treating, their healthcare was spotty at best. So the emphasis on self-neglect that exists for all in training, in their case was dangerous. So something that should have been "ignorable," but also at the same time, should NOT have been EXPECTED to be ignored, became a permanent injury.

Of course, they only have themselves to blame. But they were not a doctor yet. They were being ADVISED BY DOCTORS I assume weren't trying to torture them, but look out for their career. In hindsight, the whole thing is a ridiculous tragedy.

Later, as a med student, they had an accommodation to go to a few medical appts, scheduled for when they would impact patient care the least. Guess what? They got a negative evaluation specifically related to being gone those few times.

They were told by their Dean to "hide" their injury for residency interviews or not be matched.

I've just covered the really overt issues. Of course they dealt with discrimination in a number of other ways.

That's my point. I'm not a ****ing snowflake, that's not why I'm pissed about all this. To me this isn't about whah whah I don't want to work 16 hours a day - I'm fine with it. The problem is that setting the bar there, what happens when people get hurt? What happens when they seek help?

Yes, you need to be highly functional, and even if you sustain injury on the job, you need to be able to cope and adapt. But the environment should be less intrinsically bad for health, less encouraging of self neglect, and real reasonable accommodations need to be allowed. Discrimination happens, and it's not going to get better in a system rife with workaholism, overwork, burnout, and outright refusal to allow people to take basic care of themselves. The whole culture is off.

Congratulations, you needed to pass a kidney stone and it took 2 days. You're using the stupidest examples that are not likely to lead to discrimination, and do not need ongoing accommodation.

You're also setting up a false dichotomy. Someone's medical condition not being consistent with residency training at the current grueling pace does not equal not being able to practice as a competent attending. Yes, you must get through training, yes training must be a more condensed and structured experience. But no, it doesn't have to be as punishing as it is, and that's evidenced by other training systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Full stop, you're wrong. You did not address a single point I made about why someone on disability doing something on their own time at their own pace, possibly coping with side effects or quite altered from medications they are on, possibly exacerbating their condition, possibly having an exacerbation that leads to being unable to function in one 0r more important areas, possibly needing recuperation, does not = employable. It is far more complex than that not only legally, but from a common sense standpoint, and I addressed those complexities.

You are not a vocational expert to my knowledge. Neither am I. However, have you ever been assessed by one? Have you ever watched the hearing process between a judge, the medical evidence, witness statements, an attorney representing an applicant for SSI, and then the testimony and cross-examination of a vocational expert? Just curious. I have seen this process up close. Not only that, I am willing to share what I have learned, and will even reference the Social Security policies that govern this. But in a few weeks. Until then, I think I wrote enough on what the caveats are.

TLDR:
determining disability and employability is often far more complex than what a SINGLE physician makes of any of it
you are NOT qualified to make that call, even if you did disability exams
put in a fence DOES NOT equal employable by SS standards without a lot of other data points to go with it
Actually I am, at least according to my state's standards. You'd be amazed at the training I had to go through to do those exams.

Plus, I know the data points they use to determine those things. You're correct in that merely being able to do a single task does not disqualify someone from being disable. However if the nature of the disability is something that should preclude doing that, then it absolutely can be used to deny disability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
Please note that copying, cutting and pasting or paraphrasing articles especially those from password protected sites is a copyright violation, a TOS violation and puts SDN and our users are risk of lawsuit. Those posts have been removed; please refrain from posting others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
This is a really, really tough situation and problem. Let's assume the article is the "full story" (which it probably isn't, but for discussion's sake let's say it is). What we have is a resident who has the knowledge/skills/attitude to perform well, but can't manage the usual schedule of a resident. The question is, what to do?

From the resident's perspective, they have all the right skills and knowledge. When they finish training, they can find a job which they will be able to perform just fine -- all outpatient, or perhaps part time, etc. They graduated from medical school without difficulties. It's just the 80 hr weeks / 24 hour shifts / long work weeks that are the problem. And they might argue that if they are going to work as an outpatient doc, that they shouldn't need to do inpatient/ICU work -- why not have just 3 years of outpatient training?

From the program's standpoint, we need employees to fill a job. That job has long hours and shifts. Why are those long hours and shifts needed? Well, perhaps "that's just the way it is" -- we've created these jobs and you can choose to work them or not. Some of it is the 10,000 hour rule (the idea that to get good at anything takes 10,000 hours of practice. 60 hr/wk (average) x 49 weeks x 3 years = 8900 hours). Many residents will tell you that less training isn't a good plan. And programs are tasked with graduating multifaceted doctors -- so "just outpatient" isn't an option, and something is lost if you only train for "your job" and don't get to see the whole spectrum of care.

In any case, the question becomes: What is a reasonable accommodation from a program for such a resident? Options:

1. Part time work. Train less intensely for longer, such that the total hours remains the same. The problem is that it's very hard to make a schedule like this. "Easy" would be working 1 month on, then being off for 1 month. You'd only get 1/2 salary, for twice as long. But I'd have to find another resident willing to do the same thing, which would be really complicated (i.e. another person, same schedule, wanting the same program and field). And it's not clear that this would work for the resident in this story -- not clear that she could work intensely for 4 weeks at all. Also, I'd end up paying for benefits for twice as long, so more costs to me.

2. Part time work, version 2. Work continuously, but with 1/2 hours each day. I see no way to make this work -- how would you work only in the AM or PM? Or removing all call, which seems unfair to others and being on call is a curricular element -- you learn things on call that you just won't learn elsewhere. This seems more unworkable. The only way I can imagine this is with buddy call -- resident is paired with other residents who are assigned to the same role, so that when the resident becomes too tired, the other resident takes over. But how is this fair to me, the employer? I have to hire two people to do the job that one will usually do. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

3. Changed curriculum -- remove all the "busy" months. Train only in outpatient clinics. This usually runs into board/RRC rule problems. Plus, does this really train people well? Or will docs like this end up missing serious problems, because they won't see them? (This is usually my main problem with outpatient NP/PA's, they are great at managing HTN/DM/etc, but end up missing the headache that is GCA or a bleed, because they don't think of it, because they have never seen it).

So, what do I do? It seems unfair to her that she can't finish her training, because it seems (again, from the one sided story) that it would be possible. But it seems unfair to me to change the entire job description just to fit her physiology, and many of the solutions would adversely affect her colleagues.

I am all ears.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This is a really, really tough situation and problem. Let's assume the article is the "full story" (which it probably isn't, but for discussion's sake let's say it is). What we have is a resident who has the knowledge/skills/attitude to perform well, but can't manage the usual schedule of a resident. The question is, what to do?

From the resident's perspective, they have all the right skills and knowledge. When they finish training, they can find a job which they will be able to perform just fine -- all outpatient, or perhaps part time, etc. They graduated from medical school without difficulties. It's just the 80 hr weeks / 24 hour shifts / long work weeks that are the problem. And they might argue that if they are going to work as an outpatient doc, that they shouldn't need to do inpatient/ICU work -- why not have just 3 years of outpatient training?

From the program's standpoint, we need employees to fill a job. That job has long hours and shifts. Why are those long hours and shifts needed? Well, perhaps "that's just the way it is" -- we've created these jobs and you can choose to work them or not. Some of it is the 10,000 hour rule (the idea that to get good at anything takes 10,000 hours of practice. 60 hr/wk (average) x 49 weeks x 3 years = 8900 hours). Many residents will tell you that less training isn't a good plan. And programs are tasked with graduating multifaceted doctors -- so "just outpatient" isn't an option, and something is lost if you only train for "your job" and don't get to see the whole spectrum of care.

In any case, the question becomes: What is a reasonable accommodation from a program for such a resident? Options:

1. Part time work. Train less intensely for longer, such that the total hours remains the same. The problem is that it's very hard to make a schedule like this. "Easy" would be working 1 month on, then being off for 1 month. You'd only get 1/2 salary, for twice as long. But I'd have to find another resident willing to do the same thing, which would be really complicated (i.e. another person, same schedule, wanting the same program and field). And it's not clear that this would work for the resident in this story -- not clear that she could work intensely for 4 weeks at all. Also, I'd end up paying for benefits for twice as long, so more costs to me.

2. Part time work, version 2. Work continuously, but with 1/2 hours each day. I see no way to make this work -- how would you work only in the AM or PM? Or removing all call, which seems unfair to others and being on call is a curricular element -- you learn things on call that you just won't learn elsewhere. This seems more unworkable. The only way I can imagine this is with buddy call -- resident is paired with other residents who are assigned to the same role, so that when the resident becomes too tired, the other resident takes over. But how is this fair to me, the employer? I have to hire two people to do the job that one will usually do. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

3. Changed curriculum -- remove all the "busy" months. Train only in outpatient clinics. This usually runs into board/RRC rule problems. Plus, does this really train people well? Or will docs like this end up missing serious problems, because they won't see them? (This is usually my main problem with outpatient NP/PA's, they are great at managing HTN/DM/etc, but end up missing the headache that is GCA or a bleed, because they don't think of it, because they have never seen it).

So, what do I do? It seems unfair to her that she can't finish her training, because it seems (again, from the one sided story) that it would be possible. But it seems unfair to me to change the entire job description just to fit her physiology, and many of the solutions would adversely affect her colleagues.

I am all ears.


I have heard of a couple instances of job sharing residents like in option 1. I think in one case it was in psychiatry and another like family med. I suspect that while it wouldn't be easy to find two residents for this, it might not be as difficult as you suspect. In one of the above cases one wanted it for health reasons,the other for family. It might even be possible to get a husband and wife couple who want this.

I agree the other two options don't seem feasible or effective.
 
Top