The Deposition of William Hopkins

The county's litigation with Matt Selover has concluded.  Matt Selover was treated horribly by some inept, former county employees;  his harrassment complaint was buried, his wages were reduced unfairly, and his due process was severely violated.  The county has now settled the case for $200,000.00 ----and now the depositions and associated documents of the case are a public record.

There have been some unflattering portrayals of this case (and inaccurate, incomplete information as well) in memos from the insurance company's lawyers--leaked to the press and not shared with the BCC when the case was being deliberated by commissioners.  There have been armchair, Monday morning keyboard warrior types spreading a bunch of misinformation about the case on facebook chat sites.  And there have been people lying about the case, the timelines, and the reasons this case was settled.

Because of all the propaganda and noise surrounding this case, and because these transcripts are public records which many have requested, I'll be posting them all here, on this blog, one by one,  so folks can read them for themselves---and make their own judgments about how poorly this former employee was treated.

This transcript, linked below, from former Escambia paramedic William Hopkins-- created a devastating hole in the medical director's purported timeline of the "when" she decided and made it known she would seek to restrict Matt Selover's priviledges and report him to the DOH.  Mr. Hopkins directly contradicted the medical director's assertions that the decision was made to restrict the ability of Selover to remain a paramedic the day of the QA/QI board--April 23rd 2019.  In fact, his testimony appears to back Selover's claim that the Medical Director sought to retaliate against him and only took action against his priviledges AFTER she was made aware of Selover's harrassment complaint against her on May 1st...  from p. 62 of the deposition:

A. All I recall that day was the meeting,

followed by Dr. Edler asking us to write up our review

of how the meeting went and then any kind of

observations that we had and that's all I remember. I

don't really remember what happened after that.

Q. Okay. Did you all in that meeting discuss any

type of reprimand or punishing my client?

MS. GUDAITIS: Object to form.

A. (By the Witness) No.

Q. (By Mr. Talbott) In that meeting, did you

discuss anything about limiting his ability to practice

or do certain procedures?

A. A meeting? No.

Q. During that meeting, did you talk about

reporting him to the Department of Health?

A. At that meeting, no.

Q. At some other time, did you talk about

reporting him to the Department of Health?

A. There was a time when Dr. Edler stated that

she may have to do that based upon what she seen, but it

was more of a statement, not more of a -- a asking us

for permission. She was kind of hemming and hawing

about whether or not to do it, so I don't know, I mean,

obviously, I know what her final answer is today, but at

the time I didn't know what her final answer was.

Our attorney, Matt Shaud, sent the following email indicating this entire transcript is/was a public record.  I have removed the pages as recommended---even though legally this was not necessary to do:

"Commissioner Bergosh:

 Attached please find William Hopkins’ deposition transcript.  It does not appear to be subject to any applicable exemptions, but as Charlie noted below, this transcript also contains testimony regarding a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.  Those references are on pages 26-28, 43-44, and 88-90.

 Thank you,

 Matt Shaud

Assistant County Attorney"

Read the transcript here