May 16, 2025 • 49 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
The alarming reality of physician burnout has reached crisis levels, with six out of ten doctors now experiencing burnout—up significantly from pre-pandemic numbers. Behind these statistics are real people and real stories that demand our attention.
This episode takes a deep dive into the disturbing allegations contained in Dr. Allison Schmeck's legal complaint against Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital. Read a copy of the federal complaint HERE. As a triple board-certified anesthesiologist, Dr. Schmeck's experience reveals the dark underbelly of academic medicine: alleged gender discrimination where female physicians were assigned double the workload of male colleagues, disability discrimination where her disclosed history of depression was labeled as "baggage," and devastating retaliation when she reported unethical practices and requested mental health accommodations.
The most heartbreaking aspect of this case is how systemic failures allegedly drove a talented physician to the brink of suicide—making concrete plans including updating her will and arranging for her pets' care. Dr. Schmeck's journey exposes how institutions might weaponize mental health history against physicians who speak up, while simultaneously denying them opportunities granted to less qualified male colleagues. When leadership allegedly defines "positive faculty experience" as making superiors happy rather than supporting staff wellbeing, it reveals fundamental flaws in medical culture.
This powerful examination connects one doctor's personal nightmare to nationwide physician mental health statistics, where 80% of doctors acknowledge the stigma preventing them from seeking help. What must change in our medical institutions to protect those who dedicate their lives to healing others? How many talented physicians are we losing to these systemic failures? Listen and consider what responsibility we all share in demanding better for those who care for us at our most vulnerable moments.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We often admire the dedication of our medical
professionals.
You know the long hours theyput in.
But beneath that surface atireless service there can be a
really troubling reality.
A recent 2024 PhysiciansFoundation survey revealed that
a staggering six out of 10physicians are experiencing
burnout.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Six out of 10.
That's huge.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
It really is and, to put that in perspective, it's a
significant jump from the fourin 10 we saw back in 2018, you
know, before the major pandemicshifts.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Right Pre-pandemic.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And what's perhaps even more concerning is that
over half of physicians reportknowing a colleague who is
considered attempted or evendied by suicide.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's just devastating.
These figures really dohighlight the immense pressures
in the medical field.
They absolutely do and whatcomplicates this even further,
according to that same survey,is the significant stigma
surrounding mental health withinthe medical profession itself.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
The stigma, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Nearly 80% of physicians agreed that the
stigma exists and you know itacts as a barrier to seeking
help.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So people are suffering but afraid to speak up
.
You know it acts as a barrierto seeking help.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
So people are suffering but afraid to speak up
.
Exactly it can create thisreally vicious cycle where those
who are struggling the mostmight be well least likely to
reach out for support.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's against this backdrop that we're going to
take a deep dive.
Today We'll be looking closelyat a legal complaint that was
recently filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the
District of Connecticut.
The plaintiff is Dr AllisonSchmeck.
She's an anesthesiologist, andthe defendants are Yale
University and Yale New HavenHospital.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
And this isn't just like a simple disagreement about
work hours or something.
Dr Schmeck's complaint outlinesa really complex series of
allegations.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Right.
What kind of things are wetalking about?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, these include discrimination based on both sex
and disability, as well asclaims of illegal retaliation.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Retaliation OK.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And these retaliation claims fall under a number of
federal and state laws, thingslike Title VII, which you know
generally prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on sex, and
the Connecticut Fair EmploymentPractices Act, cfepa.
She also cites the Americanswith Disabilities Act, the ADA,
which protects individuals withdisabilities from discrimination
(02:11):
at work, and even Title IX,which prohibits sex-based
discrimination in educationalprograms that get federal
funding.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So a whole range of legal grounds there.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
A whole range, and beyond that, dr Schmeck alleges
a hostile work environment,wrongful termination and the
intentional infliction ofemotional distress.
It's a multifaceted case really, with a lot to unpack.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Exactly so.
To really get to grips withthis, we're focusing primarily
on the details presented in DrSchmeck's legal complaint itself
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Right, that's our main source.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
And we'll also be kind of referring back to the
broader context provided by that2024 Physicians Foundation
survey on physician well-being,just to see where these
individual allegations mightconnect to those larger trends
we talked about.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Makes sense Linking the specific case to the bigger
picture.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Our mission here is basically to understand the
sequence of events, as DrSchmeck describes them and, you
know, to link them to thesewider challenges of mental
health and workplace issues thatphysicians seem to be facing
nationwide.
Okay, so let's start at thebeginning.
Dr Schmeck is a triple boardcertified anesthesiologist,
joined Yale in 2019.
According to the complaint,what were her initial
(03:22):
experiences like right after shestarted?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Okay, so Dr Schmeck was recruited to work at the St
Raphael campus, or SRC.
That's one of the locationsunder the Yale New Haven
Hospital system.
Got it.
Interestingly, she had actuallydisclosed a history of
depression during Yale's initialcredentialing process.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Oh, okay, so they knew about this from the start.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Exactly, and this disclosure becomes pretty
significant as her allegationsunfold later on.
Early on at SRC, she claims sheexperienced discrimination
specifically because of her sex,and this was under the
leadership of Dr Dan Lombardo,who was the division chief there
at the time.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Okay, sex-based discrimination.
Can you give us some specificexamples of what she alleges?
What did that look like?
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Sure.
The complaint details that DrSchmeck, along with another
female physician, dr Nahid Lone,were well consistently assigned
nearly double the number ofpatient cases compared to their
male colleagues at SRC.
Double Double Double yeah, drSchmeck also alleges that Dr
Lombardo would routinelyschedule her for operating rooms
.
That started very early onFriday mornings.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
OK.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
And this timing unfortunately clashed with the
departmental grand rounds which,you know, required academic
activity.
Meanwhile, her male colleaguesweren't scheduled in a way that
would conflict like that.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
So she's missing out on important academic sessions,
potentially.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Potentially yeah, and furthermore she states that
female physicians were assignedmore solo or R shifts, meaning
they had less direct supervisionfrom senior colleagues,
residents or CRNAs.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
That definitely suggests a potential pattern,
doesn't it, of bias in howworkload and schedules were
being managed.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
That's what she alleges.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
yes, the complaint also describes an alleged
incident of bullying involvingN95 masks.
This sounds quite specific tothe early pandemic days.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It is yeah.
During the COVID-19 pandemic,dr Schmeck alleges she was
bullied by a male colleague, drJeff Pan, and this situation
apparently came up because DrSchmeck had personally bought
four boxes of AlphaProtec N95masks with her own money.
Her intention was to give thesemasks to her mother, who was an
(05:26):
OR nurse and was caring for DrSchmeck's grandmother who was
ill at the time Okay, a familysituation Right.
Dr Pan had also apparentlyacquired his own supply of masks
.
Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr Panaggressively questioned her
about where her masks were.
He reportedly told her he'dinformed Dr Lombardo about it
and demanded she bring her.
(05:46):
Wow, then, after he distributedhis own masks, he allegedly
started spreading rumors that DrSchmeck was hoarding PPE.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Hoarding PPE during that time.
That's a serious accusation.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Exactly A really sensitive time.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
And what was the alleged response from their
supervisor, Dr Lombardo, to thiswhole situation?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, dr Schmeck claims that, despite being aware
that Dr Pan was, you know,bullying her, dr Lombardo did
nothing to intervene or stop it.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Nothing.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Nothing.
Instead, she alleges that DrLombardo actually acted in a way
that protected Dr Pan.
Dr Lombardo actually acted in away that protected Dr Pan.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
According to the complaint, this lack of action
from her supervisor contributedsignificantly to a hostile work
environment for her.
Ok, so the allegeddiscrimination in scheduling and
now this bullying incident withno intervention.
The complaint also mentions acouple of allegedly concerning
comments made by anothercolleague, Dr Rocco Miranda.
What were those about?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
concerning comments made by another colleague, dr
Rocco Morando.
What were those about, right?
Dr Schmeck alleges that aroundthe time the sexual harassment
allegations againstthen-Governor Andrew Cuomo were
really prominent in the news.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
So I'm going to go with that period.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, dr Morando apparently made what she
describes as a misogynisticcomment to Dr Lombardo while Dr
Schmeck was present.
In this comment, he reportedlycriticized women for speaking
out against sexual harassmentduring that time, sort of
implying hypocrisy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Hmm, ok, and there was another one.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yes, In a separate incident, Dr Schmeck states that
during a disagreement over anoffice desk with a female
colleague, Dr Anisa Kalari, DrMiranda allegedly told Dr
Lombardo again with Dr Schmeckpresent that this problem could
be solved with a small handgun.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Whoa, that's incredibly disturbing to hear in
a workplace.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Absolutely chilling.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So, given these experiences that Dr Schmeck
describes at SRC the workload,the scheduling, the bullying,
these comments it seems like sheeventually sought help or maybe
a change.
How did that come about?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, she felt she couldn't report these issues to
the former chair, dr RobertaHines.
Why not?
Because of alleged pastresponses to sexual harassment
claims that were described asbasically, boys will be boys, oh
dear.
So Dr Schmeich initiallyreported the situation
anonymously.
She went to Dr Darren Lattimore, who was the deputy dean for
diversity and inclusion at thetime.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Okay, anonymously first.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yes, Then, later in May 2021, she had a formal
meeting with Dr Trevor Bannack,the vice chair of clinical
operations, specifically toreport the bullying behavior
she'd experienced from Dr Pan.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right, the mask incident guy, and did this
meeting with Dr Bannack lead toany you know tangible changes or
support for her?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Well, following that initial meeting, Dr Schmeck had
a more detailed follow-up callwith Dr Banach.
In this call she elaborated notjust on Dr Lombardo's alleged
protection of Dr Pan, but alsoon what she described as him
enabling a sort of broaderpattern of abuse against female
staff.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So the scheduling and workload stuff again.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Exactly the unequal assignment of workload and
scheduling that we discussedearlier.
And in response to thesereports, dr Banach did
facilitate a series of meetingsfor Dr Schmeck.
These were with Andrea Trillian, who was the director of
professionalism, and eventuallywith Dr Hines, herself, the
former chair.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
OK, so meetings were set up.
What was the reported outcomeof those conversations?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Dr Schmeck met with Mrs Trillian and reportedly
expressed her concerns about animpact all of this
discriminatory treatment washaving on her mental health.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Understandable.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
But she also conveyed some optimism about the
prospect of transferring to theYork Street campus, or YSC.
She was hoping for, you know, amore supportive environment
there, a fresh start.
That was the hope and,according to her complaint, her
meeting with Dr Hines actuallyseemed more supportive.
Dr Hines reportedly listened toher concerns and agreed that a
transfer away from the situationat SRC would probably be in the
(09:35):
best interest of both DrSchmeck and her patients.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
OK, so Dr Hines facilitated the move.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yes, ultimately, dr Hines facilitated Dr Schmeck's
transfer to the OBanesthesiology division at YSC
in August 2021.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
So a move to a different campus within the same
hospital system, hoping forthat fresh start.
But the complaint indicatesthat the challenges
unfortunately didn't end there.
They continued at YSC,particularly with the arrival of
a new chair, dr Lisa Leffert.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
That's right.
Dr Leffert joined Yale as thenew chair of anesthesiology.
Right around the same time, drSchmeck made her transfer to YSC
.
They had an initialintroductory meeting in
September 2021.
And during this meeting, drSchmeck discussed her
professional goals, specificallyher interest in pursuing a
cardiac fellowship in the nextacademic year.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Right, she wanted to specialize further.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Exactly.
But Dr Schmeck soon becameconcerned about what she
perceived as pressure from DrEamon Alien, who was the OB
division chief at YSC.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Pressure about what?
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Pressure to get credentialed at Bridgeport
Hospital or BH, even though shehad these impending plans for
the fellowship.
It seemed counterintuitive toher.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Okay, and how did Dr Schmeck address this perceived
pressure from Dr Alien?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, she reportedly confided in the new chair, Dr
Leffert, about the pressure shewas feeling from Dr Alien
regarding the Bridgeportcredentialing.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
OK, she went to her new boss.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Yes, and she also took that opportunity to
disclose the past experiences ofabuse that she and other female
physicians had allegedlyendured while working back at
the St Raphael campus.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
So she's trying to give her the context.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Exactly Trying to explain her background and
sensitivities and it's mayberelevant here to bring back that
Physicians Foundation survey wementioned.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Okay, how so?
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Well, that survey found that 60% of female
physicians thought that changesto medical licensure questions
the ones that stigmatize mentalhealth access were helpful if
they were changed.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
This suggests, you know, a heightened awareness and
maybe sensitivity among femalephysicians, possibly including
Dr Schumach, about disclosingmental health concerns in
professional contexts likecredentialing.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's a really interesting connection to the
survey data, so she shares thishistory and her current concerns
with Dr Leffert.
The complaint then goes on todescribe what sounds like a
complicated and really drawn outcredentialing process at
Bridgeport Hospital anyway,followed by an email exchange in
October 2021.
That seemed to kind of escalatetensions.
What happened there?
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, the credentialing process at
Bridgeport reportedly becamequite lengthy and confusing for
Dr Schmeck.
Then, in October 2021, therewas this email thread going
around about a clinical incident.
Dr Leffert was included on thisemail chain and in the middle
of this discussion, dr Leffertunexpectedly jumped in with a
question about Dr Schmeck'sinterest in pursuing
credentialing at Bridgeport.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Wait, even after Dr Schmeck had confided in her
about feeling pressured.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Exactly.
This inquiry reportedly feltreally insensitive to Dr Schmeck
, especially given her recentconfidential disclosures to Dr
Leffert about the pressure fromDr Alien and her past
experiences at SRC.
It seemed like it ignoredeverything she'd shared.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Oof, okay, and how did Dr Schmeck respond to this
seemingly poorly timed email?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Well, Dr Schmeck replied to Dr Leffert's email
with a brief and maybe somewhatterse no thanks, and she added
that she was just tired of thewhole credentialing process.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Understandable maybe, given the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Perhaps, but this brief response reportedly did
not sit well with Dr Leffert.
She then demanded that DrSchmeck attend a meeting with
her and Ms Terrellian, theprofessionalism director, and
accused Dr Schmeck of behavingunprofessionally in her email
reply.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Wow, from no thanks to unprofessionalism, that
sounds like a significant shiftin their interaction.
What reportedly took placeduring that meeting in October?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
During that meeting.
Dr Schmeck alleges that DrLeffert just dismissed her
concerns about the harassmentshe had experienced.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Dismissed them how.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Dr Leffert reportedly drew a comparison to her own
experience with a medicalmalpractice case where she felt
unfairly targeted.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
OK.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
And she apparently suggested to Dr Schmeck that she
should essentially and this isa quote alleged in the complaint
just accept workplaceharassment and move on.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Just accept it and move on.
Yeah, that's quite a thing tosay.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
It is and following this exchange, ms Terrillian,
who was also there, just gave DrSchmeck contact information for
the Employee Assistance ProgramEAP, without offering any
further explanation or context.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Just here's the EAP info.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Pretty much, and subsequently Dr Schmeck claims
that she was assigned asignificantly more rigorous work
schedule compared to hercolleagues within the OB
anesthesia division at YSC.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
So potentially retaliation for pushing back or
expressing concern?
Speaker 2 (14:20):
That's what seems to be alleged.
The complaint then goes on todetail further alleged issues
with scheduling and the denialof specific requests that Dr
Schmeck made in early 2022.
This appears to continue apattern of what she's describing
as difficult working conditions.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
OK, what kind of scheduling issues?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Yes, so between January and May of 2022, dr
Schmeck reportedly asked to beassigned to 24-hour weekday call
shifts.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Why that specific request?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Her rationale was that this would help minimize
the number of weekend workdaysshe'd have to cover.
You know, try to get some moreconsolidated time off.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Makes sense, was it granted.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
No, this request was ultimately denied and, as a
result, the complaint statesthat Dr Schmeck had only three
weekends off during a five-monthperiod.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Three weekends and five months, that's brutal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Brutal and frequently on Paul.
The complaint specificallycontrasts this with the
situation of a new male graduate, Dr Dylan Schaefer.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Okay, what happened with him?
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Dr Schaefer allegedly requested, and was granted, the
assignment of 24-hour callshifts, apparently to avoid
losing a particular clinicalunit.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Wait.
So he got the exact kind ofschedule she had asked for and
been denied.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
That's the allegation .
Yes, A type of schedulingarrangement she had requested
and was denied, but allegedlygranted to a newer male
colleague.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
OK, the relationship between Dr Schmeck and Dr
Leffert seems to have becomeincreasingly strained during
this period.
Then the complaint mentions anobservation of Dr Schmeck in
February 2022, followed by ameeting request initiated by Dr
Schmeck herself.
What was the context there?
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right In February 2022, Dr Leffert reportedly
observed Dr Schmeck while shewas working in the OB unit.
Following this observation, DrLeffert allegedly expressed
dissatisfaction with how theworkload was being divided among
the team.
However, according to thecomplaint, Dr Leffert was
apparently unaware that thespecific roles and
responsibilities within the OBunit were actually formally
(16:15):
divided and assigned by DrAllian, the OB division chief.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So she's criticizing something she doesn't fully
understand the basis of.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
That's the implication.
Then, in March 2022, Dr Schmeckrequested a meeting with Dr
Leffert.
The stated purpose was todiscuss what Dr Schmeck
described as the exhaustive andunsafe OB schedule that was in
place under Dr KristenFartleman's direction but
ultimately overseen by Dr Alien.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
So she's raising safety concerns about the
schedule.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
And how did Dr Leffert allegedly respond this
time?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well, Dr Schmeck alleges that when she brought up
the topic of the OB schedule,Dr Leffert just refused to
engage in a discussion about it.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Refused, again Refused.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Instead, Dr Leffert reportedly abruptly changed the
subject of the meeting and thenfalsely accused Dr Schmeck of
not adequately performing herjob duties.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Wow.
So avoids the issue and attacksher performance.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
That's the claim and over the course of the following
year, Dr Schmeck claims that DrLeffert consistently dismissed
her various concerns, ofteninsinuating that these concerns
were stemming from underlyingmental health issues.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Bring up mental health again as a way to dismiss
her concerns.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That's what Dr Schmeck alleges.
She reportedly felt herconcerns weren't being heard or
taken seriously, especiallygiven her prior negative
experiences at SRC and theemerging similar issues she felt
she was encountering with DrAlien in the OB division at YSC.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Right, it sounds like history repeating itself for
her.
The complaint also details aspecific meeting in March 2022
where Dr Schmeck wanted to talkspecifically about Dr Alien's
behavior and management style.
What reportedly happened thenIn?
Speaker 2 (17:51):
that March 2022 meeting.
Dr Schmeck alleges that DrLeffert just didn't allow her
the opportunity to express herconcerns about Dr Alien.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Cut her down again.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Pretty much Instead of addressing those concerns.
Dr Leffert reportedly accusedDr Schmeck of having poor
communication skills.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Passing the blame.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
And the complaint also points out that Dr Schmeck
wasn't alone in experiencingdifficulties with Dr Alien.
It cites an example whereanother colleague, Dr Mukadar
Ozkan, had actually requested tobe excused from taking OB call
shifts because of challenginginteractions with him.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
So there's maybe some corroboration there that others
found him difficult.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Potentially yes.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, shifting focus slightly, dr Schmeck had these
professional aspirations incardiac anesthesiology.
How were those career goalsreportedly received and
addressed by Dr Leffert?
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Well, Dr Schmeck had expressed her request to be
considered for a position withinthe cardiac anesthesiology
division after she completed herplanned cardiac fellowship.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
That seems like a logical next step.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
It does.
However, according to thecomplaint, Dr Leffert allegedly
misrepresented the status of thecardiac division.
She stated that it wasoversubscribed and that there
were no foreseeable job openingsfor fellows completing their
training.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Oversubscribed no openings.
That sounds pretty definitive.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
It does Discouraging, especially for someone planning
their career post-fellowship.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Definitely.
The complaint then describes aperiod of escalating concerns
and the initiation of formalcomplaints by Dr Schmeck.
This feels like a significantturning point in the whole
narrative.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
It really is.
In April 2022, Dr Schmeck sentan email to Dr Leffert where she
clearly expressed her feelingsof being mistreated by Dr Alien
and also of being consistentlyignored by Dr Leffert when she
tried to address these issues.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Okay, putting it in writing.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yes, she described the whole communication process
as burdensome, stressful anddisheartening.
This email reportedly led to asubsequent meeting that involved
both Dr Leffert and Dr RobertOrbaugh, who was the deputy dean
at the time.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Okay, so the deputy dean is involved now.
What were the key concerns thatDr Schmeck raised during this
meeting with both of them?
Speaker 2 (20:01):
In that meeting, dr Schmeck raised significant
concerns about potentialretaliation from Dr Alien.
She cited specific instanceswhere she had allegedly
witnessed his vindictivebehavior towards other
colleagues.
Examples given were a CRNAnamed Christy Hickman and
another physician, dr SatragetBose.
Furthermore, dr Schmeckreported a potential ethical
violation involving Dr Alien.
(20:22):
She alleged that he wasdirecting an OB anesthesia
fellow, dr Pedro Acevedo, toenroll patients in his research
studies, even when thosepatients were refusing to
participate.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Whoa enrolling, refusing patients, that's a
major ethical red flag.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Huge.
Dr Schmeck also mentioned she'dhad prior communication about
Dr Alien's alleged unethicalresearch practices with someone
else, Dr Lars Helgeson, who hadreportedly raised these concerns
with Dr Leffert before he lefthis position.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
So Leffert might have heard about this before.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
That's the implication in the complaint and
in addition to all that, DrSchmeck raised concerns about Dr
Alien's financial relationshipwith the company that produces
Xperil, a pain medication.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Okay, a financial tie .
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yes, she alleged that his mandatory use of tap blocks
with Expiril on all C-sectionpatients wasn't necessarily best
practice and that this practiceraised ethical questions
because of his undisclosedfinancial connection to the
company making the drug.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Wow, so vindictive behavior, potential research
ethics violations, potentialfinancial conflicts of interest
these are incredibly seriousconcerns she's bringing forward.
Absolutely Very seriousPotential research ethics
violations, Potential financialconflicts of interest these are
incredibly serious concernsshe's bringing forward.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Absolutely Very serious.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
The complaint also touches upon a specific
disagreement about hospitalpolicy, namely whether patients
should wear bras duringC-section procedures.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Seems a bit specific, but what was the issue there?
Yes, dr Schmeck raised concernsrelated to patient safety
regarding this policy.
She argued that allowingpatients to wear bras during
C-sections could potentiallyimpede surgical access, increase
the risk of contamination andmaybe create difficulties during
intubation, if that becamenecessary.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Okay, so patient safety arguments.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Right, and to support her concerns she referenced
medical literature advocatingfor undergarment removal for
safety in these procedures.
Dr Alien reportedly confrontedDr Schmeck about her stance on
this policy right there on thelabor floor.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Confronted her how.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Dr Schmeck felt his tone during this confrontation
was suggestive and inappropriate, possibly implying she was gay
and looking at patients' breasts.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Oh, that's completely out of line.
If true, Probably implying shewas gay and looking at patients'
breasts.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Oh, that's completely out of line, if true, highly
inappropriate, and theinteraction reportedly escalated
beyond just a disagreement onclinical policy.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Escalated how.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
According to the complaint, dr Schmeck felt
physically threatened by DrAlien during this discussion.
She mentioned the policy atMount Sinai Hospital about
removing undergarments forsafety as a reference point.
Dr Alien allegedly reacted withsignificant anger, reportedly
clenching his fists and yellingat her something like why you
bring that here?
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Flinched fists yelling that sounds genuinely
frightening.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Extremely unsettling.
Following this interaction, DrSchmeck sent an email to Dr
Leffert requesting that shenever be required to meet with
Dr Alien alone again.
She also noted that otherfaculty members had apparently
also requested advocates duringtheir meetings with him.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So again suggesting others had issues too.
The complaint then goes on todescribe what Dr Schmeck alleges
was continued retaliationagainst her.
After raising all theseconcerns, what form did this
retaliation reportedly take?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Well, in May 2022, Dr Schmeck alleges an incident
where Dr Alien relieved only amale colleague, Dr Antonio
Gonzalez-Fiel, from their shiftearly, even though Dr Schmeck
had also finished her assignedwork.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
So letting the male colleague go early, but not her.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Right.
She interpreted this aspreferential treatment another
example of bias.
Shortly after that, in July2022, dr Schmeck began her
one-year academic leave topursue her cardiac fellowship.
This leave included anextension of her initial
employment term at Yale.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Okay, so she goes off for her fellowship.
Following the completion ofthat fellowship, dr Schmeck's
interactions with Dr Leffertseemed to deteriorate even
further.
Based on the complaint, can yououtline some of the key moments
during that period when she'sthinking about coming back?
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Sure, there was a meeting in December 2022.
Dr Schmeck expressed herinterest in returning to Yale
after her fellowship, which wasgoing well.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
However, she also indicated her preference not to
go immediately back to the OBdivision.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
She expressed interest in working in other
areas, especially cardiacanesthesiology, which she was
now specializing in.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
That makes sense, given her fellowship and her
past experiences in OB.
It does, but Dr Schmeck allegesthat Dr Leffert displayed
hostility towards her duringthis meeting.
Dr Leffert reportedlydownplayed Dr Schmeck's past
concerns about the OB scheduling, even comparing them to her own
personal experiences duringpregnancy.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Minimizing her concerns again.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
That's the allegation .
Dr Schmeck reiterated herdesire to avoid OB due to the
scheduling issues and theongoing problems she had had
with both Dr Alien and DrLeffert.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
And Leffert's response.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
In response, Dr Leffert allegedly made what Dr
Schmeck described as a bizarrecomment, stating that she
understood Dr Schmeck didn'tlike being in the operating room
.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Didn't like the OR, but she just did a cardiac
fellowship which is heavily ORbased.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Exactly.
It directly contradicted DrSchmeck's choice of fellowship.
Dr Leffert also allegedlystated smugly multiple times
well, you're here asking me fora job, apparently dismissing a
previous assurance Dr Schmeckfelt she had from Dr Hines about
her position.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Wow, really rubbing it in.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
And ultimately, dr Leffert stated that they would,
quote revisit the idea of yougoing back to OB next December
2023, pushing her back towardsOB despite her objections.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
That does not sound like a very welcoming or
supportive environment forsomeone returning with new
valuable skills from a demandingfellowship.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Not according to this account.
No.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
The complaint then details a formal notification
regarding only a one-year termof employment and an alleged
comment about baggage.
This sounds particularlyconcerning, especially given the
context of Dr Schmeck'spreviously disclosed mental
health history.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Yes, absolutely.
In a meeting that took place inJanuary 2023 involving Dr
Leffert, dr Michael Ankuda andJudith Ahern, dr Schmeck was
formally informed she would onlybe offered a one-year term.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Just one year?
Was there a reason given?
Speaker 2 (26:22):
It was reportedly contingent on her demonstrating
a more positive facultyexperience during that year.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
A positive faculty experience.
That sounds incredibly vagueand subjective.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It does, and it was during this same meeting that Dr
Leffert allegedly referred toDr Schmeck's mental health
history as baggage.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Called her mental health baggage.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
That's the allegation and reportedly told her
repeatedly that she should gosomewhere else to work.
This is a really significantallegation as it directly
references her mental health,which, remember, she had
disclosed way back duringinitial credentialing.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right.
That feels like it could crossa line into discriminatory
territory.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
And the difficulties in communication and this
strained relationship.
They seem to have persistedinto February 2023.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
That's right.
Further meetings reportedlyoccurred where Dr Leffert
allegedly dismissed Dr Schmeck'spast concerns about the OB
scheduling from the previousyear.
She apparently falselyattributed those concerns to a
personal vacation.
Dr Schme falsely attributedthose concerns to a personal
vacation Dr Schmeich had takenin June for a fertility
procedure.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Blaming it on her vacation.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yes, dr Leffert also allegedly accused Dr Schmeich of
being the common problem andthe difficulties she'd
experienced both back at SRC andnow at Decker Alien at YSC.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So it's all her fault .
Essentially that's the messageDr Schmeich says she received at
YSC.
So it's all her fault.
Essentially that's the messageDr Schmeck says she received.
She recounts feeling thisgrowing mistrust towards Dr
Leffert due to what sheperceived as insincerity, lies,
verbal abuse, discrimination,manipulation and false
accusations.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Just a complete breakdown of trust.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Completely and the alleged comment by Dr Leffert
about Dr Schmeck being one ortwo standard deviations from
normal in her behaviorreportedly resurfaced around
this time.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
That comment again.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Yes, and Dr Leffert also made what Dr Schmeck
described as a strange requestfor a safe word to use during
their interactions.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
A safe word, like in therapy.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
It sounds very unusual for a chair-faculty
relationship.
Dr Schmeck apparently respondedlightheartedly, with squirrel.
She also reiterated again thelimited number of weekends off
she'd had in 2022, while DrLeffert allegedly disputed the
facts and again blamed her Junevacation.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Just not accepting the reality of the schedule
issue.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Seemingly not, according to the complaint.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
The formal written notice of the one-year term was
then reportedly received by DrSchmeck in March 2023.
How did she react to gettingthat officially in writing?
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Well, following the receipt of the formal notice, dr
Schmeck sent an email to DrLeffert directly questioning the
decision not to renew hercontract for a longer period or,
you know, more permanently.
In this email she specificallymentioned the significant
burnout she had experienced dueto the alleged bullying and the
demanding work schedule she'dendured.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Connecting it directly to the treatment she
received.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Yes, another meeting then took place in March 2023.
This was requested by DrLeffert, even though Dr Schmick
had asked to postpone it becauseshe had board exams coming up.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Pushing for a meeting despite exams.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Apparently, According to the complaint, this meeting
lacked a clear agenda and againresulted in Dr Leffert allegedly
dismissing Dr Schmeck'sattempts to resolve the ongoing
issues and again insinuating herconcerns were related to mental
health problems.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
The same pattern again.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yes, Dr Leffert also allegedly accused Dr Schmeck of
insulting her job and falselyclaimed that Dr Schmeck had said
Dr Leffert was out to get her,a statement which Dr Schmeck
denies ever making.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
It sounds like that March meeting was pretty
contentious.
What else reportedly occurredduring that interaction?
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Well, Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr Leffert
essentially turned the focus ofthe meeting around, accusing Dr
Schmeck of not listening to her.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Accusing her of not listening.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Right.
Dr Leffert then reportedlypressured Dr Schmeck to discuss
her career development plans,only to immediately pivot and
demand that Dr Schmeck repeateverything that Dr Leffert had
just said during theconversation.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Demanded she repeat it back like a test.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
It sounds like it.
Dr Schmeck states that she didrepeat it back.
Following this meeting, drSchmeck followed up by providing
her work schedule, yet again asevidence of the limited time
off she had actually experienced.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Still trying to prove the facts about the schedule.
Okay, so after completing hercardiac fellowship in June 2023
with reportedly stellar feedback, dr Schmeck returned to the
faculty, but she was placed inthe Dhamma division, not cardiac
.
How did that happen?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Right In June 2023, Dr Viji Kurup, the division
chief of Dhamma, emailed DrSchmeck requesting a meeting to
discuss division expectationsand opportunities.
However, Dr Schmeck reportsthat multiple attempts to
actually schedule this meetingwith Dr Kurup were subsequently
canceled by Dr Kurup for thedepartment.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Hmm, difficulty, even scheduling a meeting.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Yes.
So, despite successfullycompleting the fellowship with
great feedback, she resumed herfaculty position in July 2023,
placed in Dhamma.
This was despite her cleardesire to work in cardiac the
division Dr Leffert hadallegedly misrepresented as
having no openings.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Right the oversubscribed division.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Exactly Dr Leffert's decision to put her in Dhamma
for just that one year termremained unclear even after Dr
Schmeck asked for clarificationand due to her ongoing health
concerns and the potential forretaliation, dr Schmeck made the
decision not to return to theOB division at all.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
Understandable.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
And, adding to the communication issues, dr Kirp
ended up canceling theirrescheduled July 2023 meeting as
well.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
This sounds incredibly frustrating.
The complaint then describes DrSchmeck requesting an
accommodation and the emergenceof even more conflict with the
department leadership.
This feels like another reallycritical phase.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
It absolutely is In August 2023,.
Dr Leffert requested yetanother meeting, this time
involving Dr Rohrbaugh, thedeputy dean.
Again In response, dr Schmeckalso requested a separate
meeting just with Dr Rohrbaugh.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Why separate?
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Her stated purpose was to discuss Dr Leffert's
alleged pattern of gaslightingand ridicule her own
deteriorating mental health andher desperate need to focus on
her personal well-being.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Laying it all out for the deputy dean.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yes, and in her communication with Dr Rohrbaugh
she outlined what she calledhealthy boundaries for any
future interactions with DrLeffert.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Healthy boundaries, like what?
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Things like expecting respect, thoughtful
communication focusing on facts,direct communication, having
some control over meeting topics, not having the story changed
on her and, importantly, no moresolo meetings with Dr Leffert
without a witness.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Setting clear terms for interaction.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Trying to.
Yes.
During her meeting with DrRohrbaugh, dr Smech disclosed
her exhaustion, her burnout, herdepression and this feeling of
being constantly gaslighted byDr Leffert.
She stated her primary goal forthe year was just to prioritize
her wellness and quote tofigure out what it is to be
happy, again asserting that shewould choose to suffer no longer
(33:14):
because of Dr Leffert.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Wow, that's a powerful statement.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
What was Deputy Dean Rohrbaugh's reported response to
these very serious and personaldisclosures?
Well, dr Rohrabach reportedlyagreed with her assessment,
stating that she had been quotesuffering at Yale for quite some
time.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So he acknowledged her suffering.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
He did, apparently, and he suggested she utilize the
employee assistance program,the EAP.
Ok, she utilized the EmployeeAssistance Program, the EAP.
Following this, a requiredmeeting took place in August
2023 that included Dr Leffert,dr Rohrbaugh and Dr Schmeck.
During this meeting, dr Schmeckformally requested an
accommodation for her mentalhealth and overall well-being.
She reiterated that herpriority for the year was
(33:53):
wellness and stepping back fromdepartmental activities causing
undue pressure.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
So formally requesting accommodation now,
but it sounds like Dr Leffert'sreaction to this request was
less than supportive.
Yeah, based on the complaint.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Yes, dr Schmeck notes a really stark contrast.
She points out that Dr Lefferthad previously expressed this
profound interest in her careerdevelopment Right, but this
apparent interest seemed tocompletely shift to hostility
after Dr Schmeck raised concernsabout OB.
During the meeting where DrSchmeck requested accommodation,
dr Rohrbaugh asked her todiscuss her academic and career
(34:30):
interests, despite her clearlystated mental health focus.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Pushing academics, even when she's asking for
mental health accommodation.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
That's what's alleged , and Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr
Leffert behaved disrespectfullywhile Dr Rohrball was reading
out the list of healthyboundaries Dr Schmeck had
proposed.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
Disrespectfully how.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
At one point, allegedly pretending to swat a
fly in a dismissive manner whilethe boundaries were being read.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Swatting a fly Seriously.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
That's the allegation .
Dr Leffert then demandedconcrete examples of problematic
behavior.
When Dr Schmeck cited thebaggage comment as a specific
example related to her mentalhealth.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
The comment from the January meeting.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Exactly.
Dr Leffert reportedly accusedher of speaking in soundbites.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Dismissing the example she provided when asked
for one.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
It seems that way.
Dr Schmeck further alleges thatDr Leffert verbally threatened
her career and then immediatelypivoted right back to pushing
her to discuss career growth,all while continuing to refuse
to support her cardiac interestsor allow her to work in that
division.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Threatening her career, then asking about growth
.
That's confusing and soundscoercive.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
The complaint states, the series of interactions
reportedly led to Dr Schmeckbecoming uncontrollably tearful
and just unable to continueresponding.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Completely overwhelmed.
The difficulties then seem tohave extended to Dr Khorup, the
Dhamma Division chief, as well,in October 2023.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yes, in an October 2023 meeting, dr Khorup
allegedly pressed Dr Schmeckextensively about her research
interests.
This was despite Dr Schmeck'sformal accommodation request to
prioritize wellness and focus onclinical work, not academic
pursuits at that time.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Ignoring the accommodation again.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's the claim.
Schmeck reported that Dr Kurepdisplayed clear displeasure with
her lack of immediate focus onresearch and aggressively
demanded a discussion on thistopic three separate times
during the meeting, even thoughDr Schmeck felt unprepared and
had other priorities related toher well-being.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Pressuring her, despite the accommodation.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
And following the meeting, Dr Kurep sent Dr
Schmeck an email accusing her ofa lack of teamwork and falsely
claiming that Dr Schmeck hadn'twanted to meet with her at all.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Another accusation yes.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
Dr Schmeck clarified in her response that she wasn't
unwilling to meet, but shedidn't want to discuss academic
ambitions right then due to herapproved accommodation, but
would be willing later.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Trying to set boundaries again.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Exactly.
Dr Schmeck also noted thatbeing pressured about academic
interests felt particularlyantagonistic given the lack of
support she was getting from DrLeffert, who had blocked her
from the cardiac division, whilehiring less experienced male
physicians, dr Jose Duarte andDr Zach Sosonsky, into those
very roles.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Right, the division that was supposedly
oversubscribed.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
The very same, Oversubscribed the very same.
Following this interaction withDr Kurup, Dr Schmeck emailed Dr
Rohrbaugh again expressing herfeeling of being pressured
towards academic productivitywhich was compromising her
ability to focus on herwell-being, as per her approved
accommodation.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Documenting the pressure again.
The culmination of all thesereported events was ultimately
the non-renewal of Dr Schmeck'semployment contract.
How did this final decisionunfold?
In December 2023?
Speaker 2 (37:41):
Well, dr Schmeck reports experiencing further
difficulties just schedulinganother meeting with Dr Leffert
in December 2023,.
Despite offering a flexibleschedule, dr Leffert reportedly
accused her of making itdifficult to arrange a meeting.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
Flipping it back on her again.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Seems to be the pattern alleged In their meeting
.
That finally happened inDecember 2023,.
Dr Leffert informed Dr Schmeckthat her employment term would
not be renewed.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
And the reason given this time.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
The sole reason cited , according to the complaint,
was Dr Schmeck's interactionswith her superiors.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Interactions with superiors Still vague.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Very vague, and the October meeting with Dr Kurup
was specifically mentioned asthe only concrete incident
supporting this decision.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
The meeting where she tried to uphold her
accommodation.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Precisely, dr Leffert allegedly falsely accused Dr
Schmeck of making it hard tomeet Dr Kurup and of refusing to
discuss Kurup's preferredtopics during that meeting,
completely disregarding theaccommodation.
Dr Leffert then defined thatpositive faculty experience
requirement.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
The vague term from before.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Yes, she defined it as Dr Schmeck creating a
positive experience specificallyfor her superiors.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Wow.
So it's not about herexperience, it's about making
her bosses feel good.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
That's the interpretation presented.
Dr Rohrbaugh, who was alsopresent, allegedly reinforced
the idea that the academicmission of the institution took
precedence over facultywell-being.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Mission over people.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
And in a particularly telling moment, Dr Leffert
reportedly acknowledged thisisn't healthy and suggested that
Dr Schmeck would likely bebetter suited in a more
supportive environment elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Acknowledging it's unhealthy while apparently
contributing to it.
That's quite something.
It is striking.
It's also striking that,despite these alleged issues
with her superiors, thecomplaint specifically
highlights positive feedback DrSchmidt consistently received
from residents about herteaching and clinical work
throughout 2023 and 2024.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Yes, the complaint really emphasizes that
Consistently positive reviewsfrom residents on her teaching
and clinical skills during thatwhole period.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
So good at the core job allegedly.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
Right.
Dr Schmeck alleges the decisionto terminate her was actually
retaliation for requestingaccommodation for her mental
health and for reporting whatshe believed were unsafe and
unethical practices.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Retaliation.
Plain and simple is the claim.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Yes.
She also points to herenrollment in a second
fellowship aimed at advancingher career in cardio-obstetric
anesthesiology as more evidencethat the non-renewal was
discriminatory, not based onlegitimate performance issues.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
Showing continued commitment to her field.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
Exactly and notably, she alleges there was no formal
performance improvement plan putin place before the non-renewal
and that Dr Leffert's newlydefined metric of a positive
faculty experience was justvague and subjective, maybe even
created after the fact.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
Right.
Following the notification ofnon-renewal, Dr Schmuck
reportedly pursued formalcomplaints within the university
system.
What was the outcome of thoseefforts?
Did anything come of them?
Speaker 2 (40:41):
Well, she submitted a formal complaint against Dr
Leffert to Dean Nancy Brown inJanuary 2024, detailing all
these issues.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
OK.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
Following this, Dr Leffert allegedly sent an email
that Dr Schmuck interpreted asan attempt to solidify years of
gaslighting.
Leffert stated she hadstruggled to engage with Dr
Schmeck constructively.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Which Dr Schmeck saw as more denial.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Exactly A pattern of denial and deflection in Dr
Schmeck's view.
In her complaint, Dr Schmeckdescribed Dr Leffert's actions
as creating an emotionallyabusive and hostile work
environment that led her toquestion her own self-worth and,
tragically, to experiencesuicidal ideation and actually
begin planning.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
It reached that point Devastating.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Truly, she alleges, leffer consistently deflected
responsibility and normalizedwhat Dr Schmeck considered
abusive behavior.
After a meeting with Dean Brownin January 2024, dr Schmeck
ultimately withdrew hercomplaint from the School of
Medicine in February 2024.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Why withdraw it?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Due to concerns about potential leaks that could
damage her professionalreputation further.
She then resubmitted thecomplaint to the university
provost Scott Strobel.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
OK, moving it up the chain.
The final months of DrSchmeck's employment at Yale
sound like they were justincredibly difficult and
emotionally charged.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Based on these details, they certainly seem to
have been In February 2024,.
Following what she described ascritical emails she sent and a
patient safety report she filed,which Dr Leffert apparently
initially agreed with but latertermed scathing, Dr Leffert
placed Dr Schmeck onadministrative leave for the
remainder of her one-year term.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
Placed on leave after filing a safety report.
Speaker 2 (42:19):
That's the timing alleged.
During this leave period, DrSchmeck learned that Dr Zach
Sosansky, a male physician, arecent graduate, had been hired
into the cardiac division.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
The oversubscribed division with no openings.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Exactly Directly contradicting Dr Leffert's
previous claims.
The complaint then details DrSchmeck's descent into severe
suicidal ideation and the activepreparations she began making.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
Preparations Like what.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Updating her will canceling credit cards,
organizing important documents,leaving notes, making
arrangements for her cats to goto Canada, even booking a hotel
room.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Oh my goodness, she was making concrete plans.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
Very concrete plans.
She had also planned to send anautomatic email detailing her
experiences to Yale leadershipfaculty residents, the wider OB
anesthesia community,accrediting bodies like ACGME,
professional societies like SOAPand ASA and various news
agencies.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
The final message.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
It seems that way, her final day of employment at
Yale was June 30, 2024.
Her final day of employment atYale was June 30th 2024.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
After her departure she learned that Dr Jose Duarte,
another male physician, aformer resident, had also been
hired into the cardiac divisionin the fall of 2024.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
So two male hires into the division she wanted and
was told was full.
Two male hires, yes.
Dr Schmeck further alleges thatDr Leffert attempted to damage
her future career prospects bycommunicating negative
information about her to DanburyHospital in July 2024.
Trying to affect her next job.
That's the allegation and inresponse to a complaint filed
with the CHRO, the chief humanresources officer, Dr Schmeck
(43:53):
claims that Dr Leffert actuallychanged the stated reason for
her non-renewal.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Changed it from what to what.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
From the vague interactions with superiors to
professionalism.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Professionalism, but you said there were no prior
disciplinary actions.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
Exactly, despite the absence of any prior
disciplinary actions orperformance improvement plans
during her employment.
Finally, dr Schmeck allegesthat Dr Leffert was essentially
projecting her own negativetraits onto her.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
It's just, it's impossible to hear these deeply
troubling details withoutreflecting back on those
alarming statistics aboutphysician burnout and mental
health that we started with.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Absolutely.
The narrative presented in thiscomplaint, I mean it sadly
aligns all too well with thosehigh rates of burnout and the
prevalence of suicidal thoughtsreported in the Physicians
Foundation survey.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
And the survey's finding that nearly 80% of
physicians agree there's asignificant stigma around mental
health care in the profession.
That could be directly relevantto Dr Schmeck's experience.
You know any potentialhesitation she might have had in
openly discussing her strugglesor seeking formal support
earlier on.
Speaker 1 (44:55):
Right, the fear of being seen as having baggage.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Precisely.
Furthermore, the surveyindicated that over half of
physicians believe theirworkplace rarely or never
implements evidence-basedwell-being solutions, and a
large majority feel thatreducing administrative burdens
would really help their mentalhealth.
Dr Schmeck's allegedexperiences certainly seem to
underscore the presence ofsystemic pressures and, well, a
(45:18):
perceived lack of adequatesupport within this specific
academic medical center.
Speaker 1 (45:23):
This has been a truly detailed and, frankly, a very
disturbing account of theallegations laid out in Dr
Schmeck's legal complaint.
Just to bring it all togetherfor a moment, she alleges this
sustained pattern ofdiscrimination based on her sex
starting at St Raphael campus,continuing after her transfer to
York Street.
This was reportedly compoundedby disability discrimination
(45:44):
related to her previouslydisclosed history of depression.
She further claims she facedretaliation, serious retaliation
for reporting these issues andfor raising concerns about
patient safety and ethicalpractices.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Right, the retaliation seems key.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
And this alleged retaliation ultimately
culminated in the non-renewal ofher employment contract.
All of this occurring, she says, within a work environment that
she describes as hostile andemotionally abusive, which had a
profound and just devastatingimpact on her overall well-being
.
Speaker 2 (46:13):
A truly harrowing account.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
And, as we've discussed, this very personal
account unfolds against thatbackdrop of a well-documented
national crisis of physicianburnout and the significant
stigma still associated withseeking help for mental health
challenges within the medicalprofession itself.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
That's a really comprehensive and important
summary of the core allegationshere and, reflecting on all of
this, it truly compels you,doesn't it, to consider the
broader implications for theentire medical community.
Speaker 1 (46:41):
It really does.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
How can academic medical institutions, places
like Yale, truly cultivate aculture of safety and mutual
respect?
I mean, how do we createenvironments where physicians
feel genuinely supported intheir mental health and feel
empowered to raise legitimateconcerns about safety, about
ethics, about treatment, withoutthat fear of negative
repercussions or, you know,serious professional damage?
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, what needs to change systemically?
Speaker 2 (47:04):
Exactly what fundamental systemic changes are
truly necessary within thesehigh-pressure academic settings
to effectively address theserious issues highlighted in Dr
Shemek's case and those thatare echoed consistently in these
national well-being surveys ofphysicians.
These are absolutely criticalquestions that demand serious,
(47:25):
sustained attention.
They really do, and for anyonelistening who wants to maybe
explore these issues further,perhaps looking into the work of
organizations dedicatedspecifically to physician
well-being and mental healthcould be a valuable starting
point.
There are groups doingimportant work in this area.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
That's a good suggestion.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
Yeah, this deep dive into Dr Schmeck's allegations.
I think it provides a stark andreally sobering glimpse into a
complex situation, one withdeeply significant implications
not just for the individualinvolved, dr Schmeck herself,
but really for the wider medicalcommunity as a whole.
It raises questions we all needto be thinking about.
We often admire the dedication of our medical
professionals.
You know the long hours theyput in.
But beneath that surface atireless service there can be a
really troubling reality.
A recent 2024 PhysiciansFoundation survey revealed that
a staggering six out of 10physicians are experiencing
burnout.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Six out of 10.
That's huge.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
It really is and, to put that in perspective, it's a
significant jump from the fourin 10 we saw back in 2018, you
know, before the major pandemicshifts.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Right Pre-pandemic.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
And what's perhaps even more concerning is that
over half of physicians reportknowing a colleague who is
considered attempted or evendied by suicide.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
That's just devastating.
These figures really dohighlight the immense pressures
in the medical field.
They absolutely do and whatcomplicates this even further,
according to that same survey,is the significant stigma
surrounding mental health withinthe medical profession itself.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
The stigma, yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Nearly 80% of physicians agreed that the
stigma exists and you know itacts as a barrier to seeking
help.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
So people are suffering but afraid to speak up
.
You know it acts as a barrierto seeking help.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
So people are suffering but afraid to speak up
.
Exactly it can create thisreally vicious cycle where those
who are struggling the mostmight be well least likely to
reach out for support.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's against this backdrop that we're going to
take a deep dive.
Today We'll be looking closelyat a legal complaint that was
recently filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the
District of Connecticut.
The plaintiff is Dr AllisonSchmeck.
She's an anesthesiologist, andthe defendants are Yale
University and Yale New HavenHospital.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
And this isn't just like a simple disagreement about
work hours or something.
Dr Schmeck's complaint outlinesa really complex series of
allegations.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Right.
What kind of things are wetalking about?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Well, these include discrimination based on both sex
and disability, as well asclaims of illegal retaliation.
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Retaliation OK.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
And these retaliation claims fall under a number of
federal and state laws, thingslike Title VII, which you know
generally prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on sex, and
the Connecticut Fair EmploymentPractices Act, cfepa.
She also cites the Americanswith Disabilities Act, the ADA,
which protects individuals withdisabilities from discrimination
(02:11):
at work, and even Title IX,which prohibits sex-based
discrimination in educationalprograms that get federal
funding.
Speaker 1 (02:19):
So a whole range of legal grounds there.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
A whole range, and beyond that, dr Schmeck alleges
a hostile work environment,wrongful termination and the
intentional infliction ofemotional distress.
It's a multifaceted case really, with a lot to unpack.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Exactly so.
To really get to grips withthis, we're focusing primarily
on the details presented in DrSchmeck's legal complaint itself
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Right, that's our main source.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
And we'll also be kind of referring back to the
broader context provided by that2024 Physicians Foundation
survey on physician well-being,just to see where these
individual allegations mightconnect to those larger trends
we talked about.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Makes sense Linking the specific case to the bigger
picture.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Our mission here is basically to understand the
sequence of events, as DrSchmeck describes them and, you
know, to link them to thesewider challenges of mental
health and workplace issues thatphysicians seem to be facing
nationwide.
Okay, so let's start at thebeginning.
Dr Schmeck is a triple boardcertified anesthesiologist,
joined Yale in 2019.
According to the complaint,what were her initial
(03:22):
experiences like right after shestarted?
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Okay, so Dr Schmeck was recruited to work at the St
Raphael campus, or SRC.
That's one of the locationsunder the Yale New Haven
Hospital system.
Got it.
Interestingly, she had actuallydisclosed a history of
depression during Yale's initialcredentialing process.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Oh, okay, so they knew about this from the start.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Exactly, and this disclosure becomes pretty
significant as her allegationsunfold later on.
Early on at SRC, she claims sheexperienced discrimination
specifically because of her sex,and this was under the
leadership of Dr Dan Lombardo,who was the division chief there
at the time.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Okay, sex-based discrimination.
Can you give us some specificexamples of what she alleges?
What did that look like?
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Sure.
The complaint details that DrSchmeck, along with another
female physician, dr Nahid Lone,were well consistently assigned
nearly double the number ofpatient cases compared to their
male colleagues at SRC.
Double Double Double yeah, drSchmeck also alleges that Dr
Lombardo would routinelyschedule her for operating rooms
.
That started very early onFriday mornings.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
OK.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
And this timing unfortunately clashed with the
departmental grand rounds which,you know, required academic
activity.
Meanwhile, her male colleaguesweren't scheduled in a way that
would conflict like that.
Speaker 1 (04:35):
So she's missing out on important academic sessions,
potentially.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Potentially yeah, and furthermore she states that
female physicians were assignedmore solo or R shifts, meaning
they had less direct supervisionfrom senior colleagues,
residents or CRNAs.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
That definitely suggests a potential pattern,
doesn't it, of bias in howworkload and schedules were
being managed.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
That's what she alleges.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
yes, the complaint also describes an alleged
incident of bullying involvingN95 masks.
This sounds quite specific tothe early pandemic days.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
It is yeah.
During the COVID-19 pandemic,dr Schmeck alleges she was
bullied by a male colleague, drJeff Pan, and this situation
apparently came up because DrSchmeck had personally bought
four boxes of AlphaProtec N95masks with her own money.
Her intention was to give thesemasks to her mother, who was an
(05:26):
OR nurse and was caring for DrSchmeck's grandmother who was
ill at the time Okay, a familysituation Right.
Dr Pan had also apparentlyacquired his own supply of masks
.
Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr Panaggressively questioned her
about where her masks were.
He reportedly told her he'dinformed Dr Lombardo about it
and demanded she bring her.
(05:46):
Wow, then, after he distributedhis own masks, he allegedly
started spreading rumors that DrSchmeck was hoarding PPE.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
Hoarding PPE during that time.
That's a serious accusation.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
Exactly A really sensitive time.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
And what was the alleged response from their
supervisor, Dr Lombardo, to thiswhole situation?
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Well, dr Schmeck claims that, despite being aware
that Dr Pan was, you know,bullying her, dr Lombardo did
nothing to intervene or stop it.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Nothing.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Nothing.
Instead, she alleges that DrLombardo actually acted in a way
that protected Dr Pan.
Dr Lombardo actually acted in away that protected Dr Pan.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
According to the complaint, this lack of action
from her supervisor contributedsignificantly to a hostile work
environment for her.
Ok, so the allegeddiscrimination in scheduling and
now this bullying incident withno intervention.
The complaint also mentions acouple of allegedly concerning
comments made by anothercolleague, Dr Rocco Miranda.
What were those about?
Speaker 2 (06:44):
concerning comments made by another colleague, dr
Rocco Morando.
What were those about, right?
Dr Schmeck alleges that aroundthe time the sexual harassment
allegations againstthen-Governor Andrew Cuomo were
really prominent in the news.
Speaker 1 (06:51):
So I'm going to go with that period.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Yeah, dr Morando apparently made what she
describes as a misogynisticcomment to Dr Lombardo while Dr
Schmeck was present.
In this comment, he reportedlycriticized women for speaking
out against sexual harassmentduring that time, sort of
implying hypocrisy.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
Hmm, ok, and there was another one.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Yes, In a separate incident, Dr Schmeck states that
during a disagreement over anoffice desk with a female
colleague, Dr Anisa Kalari, DrMiranda allegedly told Dr
Lombardo again with Dr Schmeckpresent that this problem could
be solved with a small handgun.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Whoa, that's incredibly disturbing to hear in
a workplace.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Absolutely chilling.
Speaker 1 (07:31):
So, given these experiences that Dr Schmeck
describes at SRC the workload,the scheduling, the bullying,
these comments it seems like sheeventually sought help or maybe
a change.
How did that come about?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Well, she felt she couldn't report these issues to
the former chair, dr RobertaHines.
Why not?
Because of alleged pastresponses to sexual harassment
claims that were described asbasically, boys will be boys, oh
dear.
So Dr Schmeich initiallyreported the situation
anonymously.
She went to Dr Darren Lattimore, who was the deputy dean for
diversity and inclusion at thetime.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Okay, anonymously first.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
Yes, Then, later in May 2021, she had a formal
meeting with Dr Trevor Bannack,the vice chair of clinical
operations, specifically toreport the bullying behavior
she'd experienced from Dr Pan.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right, the mask incident guy, and did this
meeting with Dr Bannack lead toany you know tangible changes or
support for her?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
Well, following that initial meeting, Dr Schmeck had
a more detailed follow-up callwith Dr Banach.
In this call she elaborated notjust on Dr Lombardo's alleged
protection of Dr Pan, but alsoon what she described as him
enabling a sort of broaderpattern of abuse against female
staff.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
So the scheduling and workload stuff again.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
Exactly the unequal assignment of workload and
scheduling that we discussedearlier.
And in response to thesereports, dr Banach did
facilitate a series of meetingsfor Dr Schmeck.
These were with Andrea Trillian, who was the director of
professionalism, and eventuallywith Dr Hines, herself, the
former chair.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
OK, so meetings were set up.
What was the reported outcomeof those conversations?
Speaker 2 (09:08):
Dr Schmeck met with Mrs Trillian and reportedly
expressed her concerns about animpact all of this
discriminatory treatment washaving on her mental health.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
Understandable.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
But she also conveyed some optimism about the
prospect of transferring to theYork Street campus, or YSC.
She was hoping for, you know, amore supportive environment
there, a fresh start.
That was the hope and,according to her complaint, her
meeting with Dr Hines actuallyseemed more supportive.
Dr Hines reportedly listened toher concerns and agreed that a
transfer away from the situationat SRC would probably be in the
(09:35):
best interest of both DrSchmeck and her patients.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
OK, so Dr Hines facilitated the move.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Yes, ultimately, dr Hines facilitated Dr Schmeck's
transfer to the OBanesthesiology division at YSC
in August 2021.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
So a move to a different campus within the same
hospital system, hoping forthat fresh start.
But the complaint indicatesthat the challenges
unfortunately didn't end there.
They continued at YSC,particularly with the arrival of
a new chair, dr Lisa Leffert.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
That's right.
Dr Leffert joined Yale as thenew chair of anesthesiology.
Right around the same time, drSchmeck made her transfer to YSC
.
They had an initialintroductory meeting in
September 2021.
And during this meeting, drSchmeck discussed her
professional goals, specificallyher interest in pursuing a
cardiac fellowship in the nextacademic year.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Right, she wanted to specialize further.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Exactly.
But Dr Schmeck soon becameconcerned about what she
perceived as pressure from DrEamon Alien, who was the OB
division chief at YSC.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
Pressure about what?
Speaker 2 (10:36):
Pressure to get credentialed at Bridgeport
Hospital or BH, even though shehad these impending plans for
the fellowship.
It seemed counterintuitive toher.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Okay, and how did Dr Schmeck address this perceived
pressure from Dr Alien?
Speaker 2 (10:48):
Well, she reportedly confided in the new chair, Dr
Leffert, about the pressure shewas feeling from Dr Alien
regarding the Bridgeportcredentialing.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
OK, she went to her new boss.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Yes, and she also took that opportunity to
disclose the past experiences ofabuse that she and other female
physicians had allegedlyendured while working back at
the St Raphael campus.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
So she's trying to give her the context.
Speaker 2 (11:10):
Exactly Trying to explain her background and
sensitivities and it's mayberelevant here to bring back that
Physicians Foundation survey wementioned.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Okay, how so?
Speaker 2 (11:20):
Well, that survey found that 60% of female
physicians thought that changesto medical licensure questions
the ones that stigmatize mentalhealth access were helpful if
they were changed.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Right.
Speaker 2 (11:32):
This suggests, you know, a heightened awareness and
maybe sensitivity among femalephysicians, possibly including
Dr Schumach, about disclosingmental health concerns in
professional contexts likecredentialing.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
That's a really interesting connection to the
survey data, so she shares thishistory and her current concerns
with Dr Leffert.
The complaint then goes on todescribe what sounds like a
complicated and really drawn outcredentialing process at
Bridgeport Hospital anyway,followed by an email exchange in
October 2021.
That seemed to kind of escalatetensions.
What happened there?
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, the credentialing process at
Bridgeport reportedly becamequite lengthy and confusing for
Dr Schmeck.
Then, in October 2021, therewas this email thread going
around about a clinical incident.
Dr Leffert was included on thisemail chain and in the middle
of this discussion, dr Leffertunexpectedly jumped in with a
question about Dr Schmeck'sinterest in pursuing
credentialing at Bridgeport.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Wait, even after Dr Schmeck had confided in her
about feeling pressured.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
Exactly.
This inquiry reportedly feltreally insensitive to Dr Schmeck
, especially given her recentconfidential disclosures to Dr
Leffert about the pressure fromDr Alien and her past
experiences at SRC.
It seemed like it ignoredeverything she'd shared.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
Oof, okay, and how did Dr Schmeck respond to this
seemingly poorly timed email?
Speaker 2 (12:50):
Well, Dr Schmeck replied to Dr Leffert's email
with a brief and maybe somewhatterse no thanks, and she added
that she was just tired of thewhole credentialing process.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Understandable maybe, given the circumstances.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
Perhaps, but this brief response reportedly did
not sit well with Dr Leffert.
She then demanded that DrSchmeck attend a meeting with
her and Ms Terrellian, theprofessionalism director, and
accused Dr Schmeck of behavingunprofessionally in her email
reply.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
Wow, from no thanks to unprofessionalism, that
sounds like a significant shiftin their interaction.
What reportedly took placeduring that meeting in October?
Speaker 2 (13:24):
During that meeting.
Dr Schmeck alleges that DrLeffert just dismissed her
concerns about the harassmentshe had experienced.
Speaker 1 (13:31):
Dismissed them how.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Dr Leffert reportedly drew a comparison to her own
experience with a medicalmalpractice case where she felt
unfairly targeted.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
OK.
Speaker 2 (13:40):
And she apparently suggested to Dr Schmeck that she
should essentially and this isa quote alleged in the complaint
just accept workplaceharassment and move on.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Just accept it and move on.
Yeah, that's quite a thing tosay.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
It is and following this exchange, ms Terrillian,
who was also there, just gave DrSchmeck contact information for
the Employee Assistance ProgramEAP, without offering any
further explanation or context.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Just here's the EAP info.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Pretty much, and subsequently Dr Schmeck claims
that she was assigned asignificantly more rigorous work
schedule compared to hercolleagues within the OB
anesthesia division at YSC.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
So potentially retaliation for pushing back or
expressing concern?
Speaker 2 (14:20):
That's what seems to be alleged.
The complaint then goes on todetail further alleged issues
with scheduling and the denialof specific requests that Dr
Schmeck made in early 2022.
This appears to continue apattern of what she's describing
as difficult working conditions.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
OK, what kind of scheduling issues?
Speaker 2 (14:37):
Yes, so between January and May of 2022, dr
Schmeck reportedly asked to beassigned to 24-hour weekday call
shifts.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Why that specific request?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Her rationale was that this would help minimize
the number of weekend workdaysshe'd have to cover.
You know, try to get some moreconsolidated time off.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Makes sense, was it granted.
Speaker 2 (14:57):
No, this request was ultimately denied and, as a
result, the complaint statesthat Dr Schmeck had only three
weekends off during a five-monthperiod.
Speaker 1 (15:05):
Three weekends and five months, that's brutal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Brutal and frequently on Paul.
The complaint specificallycontrasts this with the
situation of a new male graduate, Dr Dylan Schaefer.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Okay, what happened with him?
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Dr Schaefer allegedly requested, and was granted, the
assignment of 24-hour callshifts, apparently to avoid
losing a particular clinicalunit.
Speaker 1 (15:23):
Wait.
So he got the exact kind ofschedule she had asked for and
been denied.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
That's the allegation .
Yes, A type of schedulingarrangement she had requested
and was denied, but allegedlygranted to a newer male
colleague.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
OK, the relationship between Dr Schmeck and Dr
Leffert seems to have becomeincreasingly strained during
this period.
Then the complaint mentions anobservation of Dr Schmeck in
February 2022, followed by ameeting request initiated by Dr
Schmeck herself.
What was the context there?
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right In February 2022, Dr Leffert reportedly
observed Dr Schmeck while shewas working in the OB unit.
Following this observation, DrLeffert allegedly expressed
dissatisfaction with how theworkload was being divided among
the team.
However, according to thecomplaint, Dr Leffert was
apparently unaware that thespecific roles and
responsibilities within the OBunit were actually formally
(16:15):
divided and assigned by DrAllian, the OB division chief.
Speaker 1 (16:19):
So she's criticizing something she doesn't fully
understand the basis of.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
That's the implication.
Then, in March 2022, Dr Schmeckrequested a meeting with Dr
Leffert.
The stated purpose was todiscuss what Dr Schmeck
described as the exhaustive andunsafe OB schedule that was in
place under Dr KristenFartleman's direction but
ultimately overseen by Dr Alien.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
So she's raising safety concerns about the
schedule.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:44):
And how did Dr Leffert allegedly respond this
time?
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Well, Dr Schmeck alleges that when she brought up
the topic of the OB schedule,Dr Leffert just refused to
engage in a discussion about it.
Speaker 1 (16:54):
Refused, again Refused.
Speaker 2 (16:56):
Instead, Dr Leffert reportedly abruptly changed the
subject of the meeting and thenfalsely accused Dr Schmeck of
not adequately performing herjob duties.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Wow.
So avoids the issue and attacksher performance.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
That's the claim and over the course of the following
year, Dr Schmeck claims that DrLeffert consistently dismissed
her various concerns, ofteninsinuating that these concerns
were stemming from underlyingmental health issues.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Bring up mental health again as a way to dismiss
her concerns.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
That's what Dr Schmeck alleges.
She reportedly felt herconcerns weren't being heard or
taken seriously, especiallygiven her prior negative
experiences at SRC and theemerging similar issues she felt
she was encountering with DrAlien in the OB division at YSC.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Right, it sounds like history repeating itself for
her.
The complaint also details aspecific meeting in March 2022
where Dr Schmeck wanted to talkspecifically about Dr Alien's
behavior and management style.
What reportedly happened thenIn?
Speaker 2 (17:51):
that March 2022 meeting.
Dr Schmeck alleges that DrLeffert just didn't allow her
the opportunity to express herconcerns about Dr Alien.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Cut her down again.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Pretty much Instead of addressing those concerns.
Dr Leffert reportedly accusedDr Schmeck of having poor
communication skills.
Speaker 1 (18:07):
Passing the blame.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
And the complaint also points out that Dr Schmeck
wasn't alone in experiencingdifficulties with Dr Alien.
It cites an example whereanother colleague, Dr Mukadar
Ozkan, had actually requested tobe excused from taking OB call
shifts because of challenginginteractions with him.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
So there's maybe some corroboration there that others
found him difficult.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
Potentially yes.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Okay, shifting focus slightly, dr Schmeck had these
professional aspirations incardiac anesthesiology.
How were those career goalsreportedly received and
addressed by Dr Leffert?
Speaker 2 (18:39):
Well, Dr Schmeck had expressed her request to be
considered for a position withinthe cardiac anesthesiology
division after she completed herplanned cardiac fellowship.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
That seems like a logical next step.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
It does.
However, according to thecomplaint, Dr Leffert allegedly
misrepresented the status of thecardiac division.
She stated that it wasoversubscribed and that there
were no foreseeable job openingsfor fellows completing their
training.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Oversubscribed no openings.
That sounds pretty definitive.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
It does Discouraging, especially for someone planning
their career post-fellowship.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Definitely.
The complaint then describes aperiod of escalating concerns
and the initiation of formalcomplaints by Dr Schmeck.
This feels like a significantturning point in the whole
narrative.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
It really is.
In April 2022, Dr Schmeck sentan email to Dr Leffert where she
clearly expressed her feelingsof being mistreated by Dr Alien
and also of being consistentlyignored by Dr Leffert when she
tried to address these issues.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Okay, putting it in writing.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Yes, she described the whole communication process
as burdensome, stressful anddisheartening.
This email reportedly led to asubsequent meeting that involved
both Dr Leffert and Dr RobertOrbaugh, who was the deputy dean
at the time.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Okay, so the deputy dean is involved now.
What were the key concerns thatDr Schmeck raised during this
meeting with both of them?
Speaker 2 (20:01):
In that meeting, dr Schmeck raised significant
concerns about potentialretaliation from Dr Alien.
She cited specific instanceswhere she had allegedly
witnessed his vindictivebehavior towards other
colleagues.
Examples given were a CRNAnamed Christy Hickman and
another physician, dr SatragetBose.
Furthermore, dr Schmeckreported a potential ethical
violation involving Dr Alien.
(20:22):
She alleged that he wasdirecting an OB anesthesia
fellow, dr Pedro Acevedo, toenroll patients in his research
studies, even when thosepatients were refusing to
participate.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
Whoa enrolling, refusing patients, that's a
major ethical red flag.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
Huge.
Dr Schmeck also mentioned she'dhad prior communication about
Dr Alien's alleged unethicalresearch practices with someone
else, Dr Lars Helgeson, who hadreportedly raised these concerns
with Dr Leffert before he lefthis position.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
So Leffert might have heard about this before.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
That's the implication in the complaint and
in addition to all that, DrSchmeck raised concerns about Dr
Alien's financial relationshipwith the company that produces
Xperil, a pain medication.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Okay, a financial tie .
Speaker 2 (21:09):
Yes, she alleged that his mandatory use of tap blocks
with Expiril on all C-sectionpatients wasn't necessarily best
practice and that this practiceraised ethical questions
because of his undisclosedfinancial connection to the
company making the drug.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Wow, so vindictive behavior, potential research
ethics violations, potentialfinancial conflicts of interest
these are incredibly seriousconcerns she's bringing forward.
Absolutely Very seriousPotential research ethics
violations, Potential financialconflicts of interest these are
incredibly serious concernsshe's bringing forward.
Speaker 2 (21:29):
Absolutely Very serious.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
The complaint also touches upon a specific
disagreement about hospitalpolicy, namely whether patients
should wear bras duringC-section procedures.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
Seems a bit specific, but what was the issue there?
Yes, dr Schmeck raised concernsrelated to patient safety
regarding this policy.
She argued that allowingpatients to wear bras during
C-sections could potentiallyimpede surgical access, increase
the risk of contamination andmaybe create difficulties during
intubation, if that becamenecessary.
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Okay, so patient safety arguments.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
Right, and to support her concerns she referenced
medical literature advocatingfor undergarment removal for
safety in these procedures.
Dr Alien reportedly confrontedDr Schmeck about her stance on
this policy right there on thelabor floor.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
Confronted her how.
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Dr Schmeck felt his tone during this confrontation
was suggestive and inappropriate, possibly implying she was gay
and looking at patients' breasts.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Oh, that's completely out of line.
If true, Probably implying shewas gay and looking at patients'
breasts.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
Oh, that's completely out of line, if true, highly
inappropriate, and theinteraction reportedly escalated
beyond just a disagreement onclinical policy.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
Escalated how.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
According to the complaint, dr Schmeck felt
physically threatened by DrAlien during this discussion.
She mentioned the policy atMount Sinai Hospital about
removing undergarments forsafety as a reference point.
Dr Alien allegedly reacted withsignificant anger, reportedly
clenching his fists and yellingat her something like why you
bring that here?
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Flinched fists yelling that sounds genuinely
frightening.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Extremely unsettling.
Following this interaction, DrSchmeck sent an email to Dr
Leffert requesting that shenever be required to meet with
Dr Alien alone again.
She also noted that otherfaculty members had apparently
also requested advocates duringtheir meetings with him.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
So again suggesting others had issues too.
The complaint then goes on todescribe what Dr Schmeck alleges
was continued retaliationagainst her.
After raising all theseconcerns, what form did this
retaliation reportedly take?
Speaker 2 (23:25):
Well, in May 2022, Dr Schmeck alleges an incident
where Dr Alien relieved only amale colleague, Dr Antonio
Gonzalez-Fiel, from their shiftearly, even though Dr Schmeck
had also finished her assignedwork.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
So letting the male colleague go early, but not her.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Right.
She interpreted this aspreferential treatment another
example of bias.
Shortly after that, in July2022, dr Schmeck began her
one-year academic leave topursue her cardiac fellowship.
This leave included anextension of her initial
employment term at Yale.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
Okay, so she goes off for her fellowship.
Following the completion ofthat fellowship, dr Schmeck's
interactions with Dr Leffertseemed to deteriorate even
further.
Based on the complaint, can yououtline some of the key moments
during that period when she'sthinking about coming back?
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Sure, there was a meeting in December 2022.
Dr Schmeck expressed herinterest in returning to Yale
after her fellowship, which wasgoing well.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
However, she also indicated her preference not to
go immediately back to the OBdivision.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
She expressed interest in working in other
areas, especially cardiacanesthesiology, which she was
now specializing in.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
That makes sense, given her fellowship and her
past experiences in OB.
It does, but Dr Schmeck allegesthat Dr Leffert displayed
hostility towards her duringthis meeting.
Dr Leffert reportedlydownplayed Dr Schmeck's past
concerns about the OB scheduling, even comparing them to her own
personal experiences duringpregnancy.
Speaker 1 (24:49):
Minimizing her concerns again.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
That's the allegation .
Dr Schmeck reiterated herdesire to avoid OB due to the
scheduling issues and theongoing problems she had had
with both Dr Alien and DrLeffert.
Speaker 1 (25:01):
And Leffert's response.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
In response, Dr Leffert allegedly made what Dr
Schmeck described as a bizarrecomment, stating that she
understood Dr Schmeck didn'tlike being in the operating room
.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Didn't like the OR, but she just did a cardiac
fellowship which is heavily ORbased.
Speaker 2 (25:17):
Exactly.
It directly contradicted DrSchmeck's choice of fellowship.
Dr Leffert also allegedlystated smugly multiple times
well, you're here asking me fora job, apparently dismissing a
previous assurance Dr Schmeckfelt she had from Dr Hines about
her position.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
Wow, really rubbing it in.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
And ultimately, dr Leffert stated that they would,
quote revisit the idea of yougoing back to OB next December
2023, pushing her back towardsOB despite her objections.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
That does not sound like a very welcoming or
supportive environment forsomeone returning with new
valuable skills from a demandingfellowship.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
Not according to this account.
No.
Speaker 1 (25:54):
The complaint then details a formal notification
regarding only a one-year termof employment and an alleged
comment about baggage.
This sounds particularlyconcerning, especially given the
context of Dr Schmeck'spreviously disclosed mental
health history.
Speaker 2 (26:08):
Yes, absolutely.
In a meeting that took place inJanuary 2023 involving Dr
Leffert, dr Michael Ankuda andJudith Ahern, dr Schmeck was
formally informed she would onlybe offered a one-year term.
Speaker 1 (26:20):
Just one year?
Was there a reason given?
Speaker 2 (26:22):
It was reportedly contingent on her demonstrating
a more positive facultyexperience during that year.
Speaker 1 (26:27):
A positive faculty experience.
That sounds incredibly vagueand subjective.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
It does, and it was during this same meeting that Dr
Leffert allegedly referred toDr Schmeck's mental health
history as baggage.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Called her mental health baggage.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
That's the allegation and reportedly told her
repeatedly that she should gosomewhere else to work.
This is a really significantallegation as it directly
references her mental health,which, remember, she had
disclosed way back duringinitial credentialing.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right.
That feels like it could crossa line into discriminatory
territory.
Speaker 2 (26:59):
And the difficulties in communication and this
strained relationship.
They seem to have persistedinto February 2023.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
That's right.
Further meetings reportedlyoccurred where Dr Leffert
allegedly dismissed Dr Schmeck'spast concerns about the OB
scheduling from the previousyear.
She apparently falselyattributed those concerns to a
personal vacation.
Dr Schme falsely attributedthose concerns to a personal
vacation Dr Schmeich had takenin June for a fertility
procedure.
Speaker 2 (27:23):
Blaming it on her vacation.
Speaker 1 (27:25):
Yes, dr Leffert also allegedly accused Dr Schmeich of
being the common problem andthe difficulties she'd
experienced both back at SRC andnow at Decker Alien at YSC.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
So it's all her fault .
Essentially that's the messageDr Schmeich says she received at
YSC.
So it's all her fault.
Essentially that's the messageDr Schmeck says she received.
She recounts feeling thisgrowing mistrust towards Dr
Leffert due to what sheperceived as insincerity, lies,
verbal abuse, discrimination,manipulation and false
accusations.
Speaker 1 (27:50):
Just a complete breakdown of trust.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Completely and the alleged comment by Dr Leffert
about Dr Schmeck being one ortwo standard deviations from
normal in her behaviorreportedly resurfaced around
this time.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
That comment again.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
Yes, and Dr Leffert also made what Dr Schmeck
described as a strange requestfor a safe word to use during
their interactions.
Speaker 1 (28:11):
A safe word, like in therapy.
Speaker 2 (28:13):
It sounds very unusual for a chair-faculty
relationship.
Dr Schmeck apparently respondedlightheartedly, with squirrel.
She also reiterated again thelimited number of weekends off
she'd had in 2022, while DrLeffert allegedly disputed the
facts and again blamed her Junevacation.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
Just not accepting the reality of the schedule
issue.
Speaker 2 (28:31):
Seemingly not, according to the complaint.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
The formal written notice of the one-year term was
then reportedly received by DrSchmeck in March 2023.
How did she react to gettingthat officially in writing?
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Well, following the receipt of the formal notice, dr
Schmeck sent an email to DrLeffert directly questioning the
decision not to renew hercontract for a longer period or,
you know, more permanently.
In this email she specificallymentioned the significant
burnout she had experienced dueto the alleged bullying and the
demanding work schedule she'dendured.
Speaker 1 (29:04):
Connecting it directly to the treatment she
received.
Speaker 2 (29:06):
Yes, another meeting then took place in March 2023.
This was requested by DrLeffert, even though Dr Schmick
had asked to postpone it becauseshe had board exams coming up.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
Pushing for a meeting despite exams.
Speaker 2 (29:18):
Apparently, According to the complaint, this meeting
lacked a clear agenda and againresulted in Dr Leffert allegedly
dismissing Dr Schmeck'sattempts to resolve the ongoing
issues and again insinuating herconcerns were related to mental
health problems.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
The same pattern again.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
Yes, Dr Leffert also allegedly accused Dr Schmeck of
insulting her job and falselyclaimed that Dr Schmeck had said
Dr Leffert was out to get her,a statement which Dr Schmeck
denies ever making.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
It sounds like that March meeting was pretty
contentious.
What else reportedly occurredduring that interaction?
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Well, Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr Leffert
essentially turned the focus ofthe meeting around, accusing Dr
Schmeck of not listening to her.
Speaker 1 (29:58):
Accusing her of not listening.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Right.
Dr Leffert then reportedlypressured Dr Schmeck to discuss
her career development plans,only to immediately pivot and
demand that Dr Schmeck repeateverything that Dr Leffert had
just said during theconversation.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Demanded she repeat it back like a test.
Speaker 2 (30:16):
It sounds like it.
Dr Schmeck states that she didrepeat it back.
Following this meeting, drSchmeck followed up by providing
her work schedule, yet again asevidence of the limited time
off she had actually experienced.
Speaker 1 (30:27):
Still trying to prove the facts about the schedule.
Okay, so after completing hercardiac fellowship in June 2023
with reportedly stellar feedback, dr Schmeck returned to the
faculty, but she was placed inthe Dhamma division, not cardiac
.
How did that happen?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Right In June 2023, Dr Viji Kurup, the division
chief of Dhamma, emailed DrSchmeck requesting a meeting to
discuss division expectationsand opportunities.
However, Dr Schmeck reportsthat multiple attempts to
actually schedule this meetingwith Dr Kurup were subsequently
canceled by Dr Kurup for thedepartment.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
Hmm, difficulty, even scheduling a meeting.
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Yes.
So, despite successfullycompleting the fellowship with
great feedback, she resumed herfaculty position in July 2023,
placed in Dhamma.
This was despite her cleardesire to work in cardiac the
division Dr Leffert hadallegedly misrepresented as
having no openings.
Speaker 1 (31:22):
Right the oversubscribed division.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Exactly Dr Leffert's decision to put her in Dhamma
for just that one year termremained unclear even after Dr
Schmeck asked for clarificationand due to her ongoing health
concerns and the potential forretaliation, dr Schmeck made the
decision not to return to theOB division at all.
Speaker 1 (31:40):
Understandable.
Speaker 2 (31:41):
And, adding to the communication issues, dr Kirp
ended up canceling theirrescheduled July 2023 meeting as
well.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
This sounds incredibly frustrating.
The complaint then describes DrSchmeck requesting an
accommodation and the emergenceof even more conflict with the
department leadership.
This feels like another reallycritical phase.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
It absolutely is In August 2023,.
Dr Leffert requested yetanother meeting, this time
involving Dr Rohrbaugh, thedeputy dean.
Again In response, dr Schmeckalso requested a separate
meeting just with Dr Rohrbaugh.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
Why separate?
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Her stated purpose was to discuss Dr Leffert's
alleged pattern of gaslightingand ridicule her own
deteriorating mental health andher desperate need to focus on
her personal well-being.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Laying it all out for the deputy dean.
Speaker 2 (32:28):
Yes, and in her communication with Dr Rohrbaugh
she outlined what she calledhealthy boundaries for any
future interactions with DrLeffert.
Speaker 1 (32:35):
Healthy boundaries, like what?
Speaker 2 (32:37):
Things like expecting respect, thoughtful
communication focusing on facts,direct communication, having
some control over meeting topics, not having the story changed
on her and, importantly, no moresolo meetings with Dr Leffert
without a witness.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Setting clear terms for interaction.
Speaker 2 (32:52):
Trying to.
Yes.
During her meeting with DrRohrbaugh, dr Smech disclosed
her exhaustion, her burnout, herdepression and this feeling of
being constantly gaslighted byDr Leffert.
She stated her primary goal forthe year was just to prioritize
her wellness and quote tofigure out what it is to be
happy, again asserting that shewould choose to suffer no longer
(33:14):
because of Dr Leffert.
Speaker 1 (33:15):
Wow, that's a powerful statement.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
What was Deputy Dean Rohrbaugh's reported response to
these very serious and personaldisclosures?
Well, dr Rohrabach reportedlyagreed with her assessment,
stating that she had been quotesuffering at Yale for quite some
time.
Speaker 1 (33:30):
So he acknowledged her suffering.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
He did, apparently, and he suggested she utilize the
employee assistance program,the EAP.
Ok, she utilized the EmployeeAssistance Program, the EAP.
Following this, a requiredmeeting took place in August
2023 that included Dr Leffert,dr Rohrbaugh and Dr Schmeck.
During this meeting, dr Schmeckformally requested an
accommodation for her mentalhealth and overall well-being.
She reiterated that herpriority for the year was
(33:53):
wellness and stepping back fromdepartmental activities causing
undue pressure.
Speaker 1 (33:57):
So formally requesting accommodation now,
but it sounds like Dr Leffert'sreaction to this request was
less than supportive.
Yeah, based on the complaint.
Speaker 2 (34:07):
Yes, dr Schmeck notes a really stark contrast.
She points out that Dr Lefferthad previously expressed this
profound interest in her careerdevelopment Right, but this
apparent interest seemed tocompletely shift to hostility
after Dr Schmeck raised concernsabout OB.
During the meeting where DrSchmeck requested accommodation,
dr Rohrbaugh asked her todiscuss her academic and career
(34:30):
interests, despite her clearlystated mental health focus.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Pushing academics, even when she's asking for
mental health accommodation.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
That's what's alleged , and Dr Schmeck alleges that Dr
Leffert behaved disrespectfullywhile Dr Rohrball was reading
out the list of healthyboundaries Dr Schmeck had
proposed.
Speaker 1 (34:46):
Disrespectfully how.
Speaker 2 (34:47):
At one point, allegedly pretending to swat a
fly in a dismissive manner whilethe boundaries were being read.
Speaker 1 (34:53):
Swatting a fly Seriously.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
That's the allegation .
Dr Leffert then demandedconcrete examples of problematic
behavior.
When Dr Schmeck cited thebaggage comment as a specific
example related to her mentalhealth.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
The comment from the January meeting.
Speaker 2 (35:08):
Exactly.
Dr Leffert reportedly accusedher of speaking in soundbites.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Dismissing the example she provided when asked
for one.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
It seems that way.
Dr Schmeck further alleges thatDr Leffert verbally threatened
her career and then immediatelypivoted right back to pushing
her to discuss career growth,all while continuing to refuse
to support her cardiac interestsor allow her to work in that
division.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Threatening her career, then asking about growth
.
That's confusing and soundscoercive.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
The complaint states, the series of interactions
reportedly led to Dr Schmeckbecoming uncontrollably tearful
and just unable to continueresponding.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Completely overwhelmed.
The difficulties then seem tohave extended to Dr Khorup, the
Dhamma Division chief, as well,in October 2023.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
Yes, in an October 2023 meeting, dr Khorup
allegedly pressed Dr Schmeckextensively about her research
interests.
This was despite Dr Schmeck'sformal accommodation request to
prioritize wellness and focus onclinical work, not academic
pursuits at that time.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Ignoring the accommodation again.
Speaker 2 (36:12):
That's the claim.
Schmeck reported that Dr Kurepdisplayed clear displeasure with
her lack of immediate focus onresearch and aggressively
demanded a discussion on thistopic three separate times
during the meeting, even thoughDr Schmeck felt unprepared and
had other priorities related toher well-being.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Pressuring her, despite the accommodation.
Speaker 2 (36:31):
And following the meeting, Dr Kurep sent Dr
Schmeck an email accusing her ofa lack of teamwork and falsely
claiming that Dr Schmeck hadn'twanted to meet with her at all.
Speaker 1 (36:39):
Another accusation yes.
Speaker 2 (36:41):
Dr Schmeck clarified in her response that she wasn't
unwilling to meet, but shedidn't want to discuss academic
ambitions right then due to herapproved accommodation, but
would be willing later.
Speaker 1 (36:51):
Trying to set boundaries again.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Exactly.
Dr Schmeck also noted thatbeing pressured about academic
interests felt particularlyantagonistic given the lack of
support she was getting from DrLeffert, who had blocked her
from the cardiac division, whilehiring less experienced male
physicians, dr Jose Duarte andDr Zach Sosonsky, into those
very roles.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
Right, the division that was supposedly
oversubscribed.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
The very same, Oversubscribed the very same.
Following this interaction withDr Kurup, Dr Schmeck emailed Dr
Rohrbaugh again expressing herfeeling of being pressured
towards academic productivitywhich was compromising her
ability to focus on herwell-being, as per her approved
accommodation.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Documenting the pressure again.
The culmination of all thesereported events was ultimately
the non-renewal of Dr Schmeck'semployment contract.
How did this final decisionunfold?
In December 2023?
Speaker 2 (37:41):
Well, dr Schmeck reports experiencing further
difficulties just schedulinganother meeting with Dr Leffert
in December 2023,.
Despite offering a flexibleschedule, dr Leffert reportedly
accused her of making itdifficult to arrange a meeting.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
Flipping it back on her again.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
Seems to be the pattern alleged In their meeting
.
That finally happened inDecember 2023,.
Dr Leffert informed Dr Schmeckthat her employment term would
not be renewed.
Speaker 1 (38:05):
And the reason given this time.
Speaker 2 (38:07):
The sole reason cited , according to the complaint,
was Dr Schmeck's interactionswith her superiors.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
Interactions with superiors Still vague.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
Very vague, and the October meeting with Dr Kurup
was specifically mentioned asthe only concrete incident
supporting this decision.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
The meeting where she tried to uphold her
accommodation.
Speaker 2 (38:26):
Precisely, dr Leffert allegedly falsely accused Dr
Schmeck of making it hard tomeet Dr Kurup and of refusing to
discuss Kurup's preferredtopics during that meeting,
completely disregarding theaccommodation.
Dr Leffert then defined thatpositive faculty experience
requirement.
Speaker 1 (38:41):
The vague term from before.
Speaker 2 (38:43):
Yes, she defined it as Dr Schmeck creating a
positive experience specificallyfor her superiors.
Speaker 1 (38:48):
Wow.
So it's not about herexperience, it's about making
her bosses feel good.
Speaker 2 (38:52):
That's the interpretation presented.
Dr Rohrbaugh, who was alsopresent, allegedly reinforced
the idea that the academicmission of the institution took
precedence over facultywell-being.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
Mission over people.
Speaker 2 (39:05):
And in a particularly telling moment, Dr Leffert
reportedly acknowledged thisisn't healthy and suggested that
Dr Schmeck would likely bebetter suited in a more
supportive environment elsewhere.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Acknowledging it's unhealthy while apparently
contributing to it.
That's quite something.
It is striking.
It's also striking that,despite these alleged issues
with her superiors, thecomplaint specifically
highlights positive feedback DrSchmidt consistently received
from residents about herteaching and clinical work
throughout 2023 and 2024.
Speaker 2 (39:36):
Yes, the complaint really emphasizes that
Consistently positive reviewsfrom residents on her teaching
and clinical skills during thatwhole period.
Speaker 1 (39:44):
So good at the core job allegedly.
Speaker 2 (39:46):
Right.
Dr Schmeck alleges the decisionto terminate her was actually
retaliation for requestingaccommodation for her mental
health and for reporting whatshe believed were unsafe and
unethical practices.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Retaliation.
Plain and simple is the claim.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
Yes.
She also points to herenrollment in a second
fellowship aimed at advancingher career in cardio-obstetric
anesthesiology as more evidencethat the non-renewal was
discriminatory, not based onlegitimate performance issues.
Speaker 1 (40:13):
Showing continued commitment to her field.
Speaker 2 (40:15):
Exactly and notably, she alleges there was no formal
performance improvement plan putin place before the non-renewal
and that Dr Leffert's newlydefined metric of a positive
faculty experience was justvague and subjective, maybe even
created after the fact.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
Right.
Following the notification ofnon-renewal, Dr Schmuck
reportedly pursued formalcomplaints within the university
system.
What was the outcome of thoseefforts?
Did anything come of them?
Speaker 2 (40:41):
Well, she submitted a formal complaint against Dr
Leffert to Dean Nancy Brown inJanuary 2024, detailing all
these issues.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
OK.
Speaker 2 (40:49):
Following this, Dr Leffert allegedly sent an email
that Dr Schmuck interpreted asan attempt to solidify years of
gaslighting.
Leffert stated she hadstruggled to engage with Dr
Schmeck constructively.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Which Dr Schmeck saw as more denial.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
Exactly A pattern of denial and deflection in Dr
Schmeck's view.
In her complaint, Dr Schmeckdescribed Dr Leffert's actions
as creating an emotionallyabusive and hostile work
environment that led her toquestion her own self-worth and,
tragically, to experiencesuicidal ideation and actually
begin planning.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
It reached that point Devastating.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
Truly, she alleges, leffer consistently deflected
responsibility and normalizedwhat Dr Schmeck considered
abusive behavior.
After a meeting with Dean Brownin January 2024, dr Schmeck
ultimately withdrew hercomplaint from the School of
Medicine in February 2024.
Speaker 1 (41:38):
Why withdraw it?
Speaker 2 (41:39):
Due to concerns about potential leaks that could
damage her professionalreputation further.
She then resubmitted thecomplaint to the university
provost Scott Strobel.
Speaker 1 (41:48):
OK, moving it up the chain.
The final months of DrSchmeck's employment at Yale
sound like they were justincredibly difficult and
emotionally charged.
Speaker 2 (41:57):
Based on these details, they certainly seem to
have been In February 2024,.
Following what she described ascritical emails she sent and a
patient safety report she filed,which Dr Leffert apparently
initially agreed with but latertermed scathing, Dr Leffert
placed Dr Schmeck onadministrative leave for the
remainder of her one-year term.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
Placed on leave after filing a safety report.
Speaker 2 (42:19):
That's the timing alleged.
During this leave period, DrSchmeck learned that Dr Zach
Sosansky, a male physician, arecent graduate, had been hired
into the cardiac division.
Speaker 1 (42:29):
The oversubscribed division with no openings.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Exactly Directly contradicting Dr Leffert's
previous claims.
The complaint then details DrSchmeck's descent into severe
suicidal ideation and the activepreparations she began making.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
Preparations Like what.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Updating her will canceling credit cards,
organizing important documents,leaving notes, making
arrangements for her cats to goto Canada, even booking a hotel
room.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
Oh my goodness, she was making concrete plans.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
Very concrete plans.
She had also planned to send anautomatic email detailing her
experiences to Yale leadershipfaculty residents, the wider OB
anesthesia community,accrediting bodies like ACGME,
professional societies like SOAPand ASA and various news
agencies.
Speaker 1 (43:11):
The final message.
Speaker 2 (43:12):
It seems that way, her final day of employment at
Yale was June 30, 2024.
Her final day of employment atYale was June 30th 2024.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
After her departure she learned that Dr Jose Duarte,
another male physician, aformer resident, had also been
hired into the cardiac divisionin the fall of 2024.
Speaker 2 (43:31):
So two male hires into the division she wanted and
was told was full.
Two male hires, yes.
Dr Schmeck further alleges thatDr Leffert attempted to damage
her future career prospects bycommunicating negative
information about her to DanburyHospital in July 2024.
Trying to affect her next job.
That's the allegation and inresponse to a complaint filed
with the CHRO, the chief humanresources officer, Dr Schmeck
(43:53):
claims that Dr Leffert actuallychanged the stated reason for
her non-renewal.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
Changed it from what to what.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
From the vague interactions with superiors to
professionalism.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Professionalism, but you said there were no prior
disciplinary actions.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
Exactly, despite the absence of any prior
disciplinary actions orperformance improvement plans
during her employment.
Finally, dr Schmeck allegesthat Dr Leffert was essentially
projecting her own negativetraits onto her.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
It's just, it's impossible to hear these deeply
troubling details withoutreflecting back on those
alarming statistics aboutphysician burnout and mental
health that we started with.
Speaker 2 (44:26):
Absolutely.
The narrative presented in thiscomplaint, I mean it sadly
aligns all too well with thosehigh rates of burnout and the
prevalence of suicidal thoughtsreported in the Physicians
Foundation survey.
Speaker 1 (44:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
And the survey's finding that nearly 80% of
physicians agree there's asignificant stigma around mental
health care in the profession.
That could be directly relevantto Dr Schmeck's experience.
You know any potentialhesitation she might have had in
openly discussing her strugglesor seeking formal support
earlier on.
Speaker 1 (44:55):
Right, the fear of being seen as having baggage.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Precisely.
Furthermore, the surveyindicated that over half of
physicians believe theirworkplace rarely or never
implements evidence-basedwell-being solutions, and a
large majority feel thatreducing administrative burdens
would really help their mentalhealth.
Dr Schmeck's allegedexperiences certainly seem to
underscore the presence ofsystemic pressures and, well, a
(45:18):
perceived lack of adequatesupport within this specific
academic medical center.
Speaker 1 (45:23):
This has been a truly detailed and, frankly, a very
disturbing account of theallegations laid out in Dr
Schmeck's legal complaint.
Just to bring it all togetherfor a moment, she alleges this
sustained pattern ofdiscrimination based on her sex
starting at St Raphael campus,continuing after her transfer to
York Street.
This was reportedly compoundedby disability discrimination
(45:44):
related to her previouslydisclosed history of depression.
She further claims she facedretaliation, serious retaliation
for reporting these issues andfor raising concerns about
patient safety and ethicalpractices.
Speaker 2 (45:54):
Right, the retaliation seems key.
Speaker 1 (45:56):
And this alleged retaliation ultimately
culminated in the non-renewal ofher employment contract.
All of this occurring, she says, within a work environment that
she describes as hostile andemotionally abusive, which had a
profound and just devastatingimpact on her overall well-being
.
Speaker 2 (46:13):
A truly harrowing account.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
And, as we've discussed, this very personal
account unfolds against thatbackdrop of a well-documented
national crisis of physicianburnout and the significant
stigma still associated withseeking help for mental health
challenges within the medicalprofession itself.
Speaker 2 (46:30):
That's a really comprehensive and important
summary of the core allegationshere and, reflecting on all of
this, it truly compels you,doesn't it, to consider the
broader implications for theentire medical community.
Speaker 1 (46:41):
It really does.
Speaker 2 (46:42):
How can academic medical institutions, places
like Yale, truly cultivate aculture of safety and mutual
respect?
I mean, how do we createenvironments where physicians
feel genuinely supported intheir mental health and feel
empowered to raise legitimateconcerns about safety, about
ethics, about treatment, withoutthat fear of negative
repercussions or, you know,serious professional damage?
Speaker 1 (47:02):
Yeah, what needs to change systemically?
Speaker 2 (47:04):
Exactly what fundamental systemic changes are
truly necessary within thesehigh-pressure academic settings
to effectively address theserious issues highlighted in Dr
Shemek's case and those thatare echoed consistently in these
national well-being surveys ofphysicians.
These are absolutely criticalquestions that demand serious,
(47:25):
sustained attention.
They really do, and for anyonelistening who wants to maybe
explore these issues further,perhaps looking into the work of
organizations dedicatedspecifically to physician
well-being and mental healthcould be a valuable starting
point.
There are groups doingimportant work in this area.
Speaker 1 (47:41):
That's a good suggestion.
Speaker 2 (47:42):
Yeah, this deep dive into Dr Schmeck's allegations.
I think it provides a stark andreally sobering glimpse into a
complex situation, one withdeeply significant implications
not just for the individualinvolved, dr Schmeck herself,
but really for the wider medicalcommunity as a whole.
It raises questions we all needto be thinking about.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.