CHAPTER FIFTEEN U: THE ATTORNEY’S VERSION
The center’s attorney asked whether I had received training on the transfer device.
I said I had.
He asked whether that training instructed staff to stop using the device after a warning.
I said it instructed staff to assess the warning and follow the relevant procedure.
He asked whether I had completed that assessment.
I said I had performed the reset and initial check, but I should have requested a more thorough inspection.
He asked whether I was now changing my story because a technician’s report had appeared.
I said I had described the warning in my original incident notes before I knew about the report.
He asked whether I could prove those notes had not been altered.
Vanessa objected that the question assumed facts not established in the record.
The hearing officer asked him to rephrase.
He asked whether I had personally maintained the electronic system containing the notes.
I said I had not.
He asked whether someone else might have changed them without my knowledge.
I said I could not rule out a technical change, but the copy recovered from the administrative packet matched what I remembered writing.
He asked whether I disliked the operations manager.
I said I disagreed with his staffing decisions.
He asked whether that disagreement had affected my judgment on the day of the injury.
I said my concern about staffing was based on the patient’s documented needs, not on my feelings about a manager.
He asked why I had not resigned if I believed the center was unsafe.
I said I had believed problems could be corrected through reporting and supervision.
He asked whether I considered myself more qualified than the people responsible for staffing.
I said I considered myself responsible for reporting risks I encountered while treating patients.
He asked whether I had spoken to reporters about the case.
I said I had declined interviews about the licensing allegations.
He asked whether I had accused a neighbor of conspiring with the center.
I said I had reported threats and relevant observations to investigators without making public accusations about motives I could not prove.
He asked whether I had benefited from the attention generated by the mailbox fire.
I stared at him.
Then I said the fire had damaged my home, frightened my neighbors, and intensified harassment at my workplace.
I said I did not consider any of those things a benefit.
The hearing officer asked the attorney to return to matters directly relevant to my professional conduct.
He sat down without another question.
I looked toward Erin and saw her listening with both hands clasped tightly together.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN V: THE UNEXPECTED ADMISSION
The board asked the center’s operations manager to return for several questions about the equipment service request.
He said the maintenance department had informed him that a sensor replacement was pending.
The hearing officer asked when he had received that information.
He said he could not remember the exact date.
She showed him Walter’s work order and asked whether he recognized the approval initials.
He looked at the page and admitted they were his.
He said he had approved the repair request but believed the device could remain in use until the replacement part arrived.
The investigator asked who had authorized that decision.
The manager said he had relied on the maintenance department.
Walter, who remained available for questions, said his recommendation had been to remove the device from service.
The manager disputed that interpretation.
The hearing officer asked Walter to read the recommendation aloud from the original work order.
Walter read the sentence stating that the device should not be used for patient transfers until the position sensor was replaced and tested.
The room became silent.
The manager said he had assumed the instruction was precautionary.
The hearing officer asked whether a precautionary instruction to remove equipment from service could be ignored without further review.
He said he had not intended to ignore it.
The investigator asked whether the patient care team had been notified.
The manager said he believed a notice had been posted.
No notice had been produced.
Vanessa asked whether I had been told the device was awaiting repair.
I said I had not.
The manager said he could not speak to every conversation that occurred on the unit.
The hearing officer noted that the question concerned a documented safety warning, not an informal conversation.
I watched the manager study his hands.
For the first time, he seemed to understand that the hearing would not end when he called a false schedule an administrative correction.
