 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. Marymount Hospital8/17/2000
Ms. Brenner, she was told she had to be an ART. The appellant never actually applied for the coder position until 1996.
As instances of preferential treatment, the appellant has asserted that Ms. Fixel, Ms. Kasmer, and Ms. Mauk received three months of Code 3 implementation training. Apparently Code 3 is a computer program used to code charts and, as the appellant acknowledged at a later point in her deposition, Code 3 has other functions such as obtaining information regarding patient information. When the appellant requested the same training, Ms. Brenner responded that the appellant was not an ART and was not eligible for the training. Ms. Brenner stated to the appellant that she would not be able to perform current coding tasks because coding had changed since the appellant had last performed coding. The other women receiving the training were Caucasian and were not, and had not ever been, ARTs.
As another example of preferential treatment, the appellant stated that in 1995 the position assistant in the department was open. Ms. Brenner appointed Ms. Fixel and Ms. Kasmer as alternate supervisors until an assistant was found. The assistant who was eventually hired was an African-American, Mary Herbert.
Marymount posted a coder position for which the appellant applied on February 7, 1996. The closing date for the acceptance of applications was February 6, 1996, but the hospital accepted her application a day late. In the same month, the appellant paid the fee to become re-certified as an ART. The appellant also enrolled and completed a class at Cuyahoga Community College in ICD-9-CM coding. She was not reimbursed for the cost of the class by Marymount.
On October 10, 1996, in a meeting with Ms. Brenner, the appellant was informed that she was to become a coder. The appellant responded that she did not want the position, but rather, she desired to remain in the position of an analyst while she trained to be a coder. Ms. Brenner and Ms. Herbert informed her that if she passed this opportunity she would never be given another. Since she had just completed a refresher course, the appellant was not subjected to a coding exam. The appellant pointed out to Ms. Brenner that she had not taken the CPT, or current procedure terminology, coding class and that the class was not offered until January 1997. The appellant was told she would be trained by her supervisors and the other coders. An extensive written training schedule was drawn up detailing that the responsibility for training the appellant rotated daily between the staff members.
The appellant was also informed by Ms. Brenner at this meeting that due to a change in hospital policy, should she wish to return to her old position, it would not be open to her (Nelson Depo. T. 116, 214). As a result of this meeting, the appellant actually began coding on October 21, 1996. At this time all of the other coders in the department were Caucasian and all of the analysts, save Kathy Watson, were Caucasian.
The appellant stated in her deposition that all coders have variations in the codes they choose to use. At times her questions to the other coders would begin a discussion as to the proper code to use. One coder would tell her one answer and the next day another coder would disagree with the first answer. The appellant became confused, but Ms. Brenner agreed with the coders that the appellant was untrainable. The appellant learned from Beverly Choo, an African-American clerk, that the other coders did not want to help her. When she approached Ms. Brenner and informed her that she could not learn with all of the animosity, the appellant was told to leave them alone and that she would be given the books to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|