Fascinating View Inside Insurance Company Lawyer's Legal Strategy for their "Client" in the Selover Suit

Ever wonder how an insurance company's lawyer, attempting to minimize her client's exposure, would advise a County that was exercising said insurance company's policy?  Read this post and attached document and you will know.  And it's fascinating. 

Although it appears this document (memo) from the County's Insurance Comapany's Law Firm was sent to our County Attorney's office on January 27th---I just got a copy of it late yesterday afternoon.  It is a detailed, behind the scenes legal analysis of the case against the county brought by Matt Selover for multiple egregious violations of his due process rights and the shameful way he was treated. This is the kind of document the public rarely gets to see, however because we are a public entity subject to the open records laws and because the litigation in this case is concluded---it now becomes a public record and open for release.  Heck, I never even knew this document existed I only was made aware of it by a source unaffiliated with the county who actually called me and asked me "What I thought about the memo?"

Well, I didn't, because I hadn't, because I'd not seen it.  

But apparently others had seen it -------and this was probably the genesis of some late night calls between our former HR director and a bean-counter insurance bureaucrat last month.... oh well.

So, now being aware of its existence--I called the county attorney late yesterday afternoon and got it in 5 minutes flat.  And I spent hours last night reading it.  

But why was this memo never shared with myself and my counterparts at our June shade session, though?  Why were some staffers and apparently at least one other commissioner provided this document---but not the rest of us?  Who leaked this memo unlawfully to outside entities before the lawsuit was settled and this document was actually subject to release?

I will get answers to these questions, I have already asked.  I do have idea, though.  And thankfully, that individual is no longer employed with the county.  Let's put it that way.

Meanwhile-this document will make it's way to the written press very soon--- and I am fairly certain portions and snippets will be cut and pasted into an article that will purport to make me the "bad guy" of this case.  "That guy Bergosh supported Selover and would not go along with our defense strategy!!" will be the flavor.

So be it.  

The facts are clear, though: we wronged this first responder, disciplined him inappropriately, denied him due process, retaliated against him after he filed a harrassment complaint against his medical director, bungled that complaint and subsequently damaged him emotionally and physically--all the while stomping all over his rights and abandoning county policy and past practice.  That's why we settled with him, and the insurance company (not Escambia taxpayers) paid him a $200,000.00 settlement. 

Here are some "low"lights from this insurance company lawyer's memo--illustrating just how weak her case was and why:

"Critically, one of our biggest weaknesses is the fact that between April 23, 2019 and May 1, 2019, there is no documentation whatsoever supporting the Board's alleged decision to 1) restrict Selover's clinical privileges and 2) that Dr. Edler decided to report Selover to the-Department of Health."

"After he [Selover] filed the complaint, he testified that he worked without any issue for 22 or 23 days until he was advised his clinical privileges were restricted on May 15, 2019. He testified John Dosh and Leon Salter advised him that Dr. Edler restricted his job duties on May 13, 2019. Notably, as noted above, this is a significant weakness in our case as this occurred over three weeks after the QA/QI meeting."

"Dr. Edler told the [April 23, 2019 QA/QI] board to write up their thoughts and she would decide what to do. He [William Hopkins] recalls her telling him to write up the meeting and their observations, but it seems like they did not decide what actions to take regarding Selover at the meeting. They did not discuss reprimand or about limiting his ability to practice or do certain procedures.   They also did not talk about reporting him to the FDOH." 

"We believe Plaintiff may be able to establish that Plaintiff through high-ranking officials­ ratified the alleged due process violations allegedly committed by Dr. Edler because it did not reverse her actions despite having reason to do so based on Peppler's legal memorandum and Spainhower's report. Accordingly, should this court determine that Selover's due process rights were violated, the County may be subject to municipal liabili ty."

"..there is a chance that the Court will find that his [Selover's] position change from paramedic to EMT-regardless of no pay change-constituted disciplinary action or adverse employment action since be was perceived by his peers to only be an EMT, his ability to work overtime as a paramedic was limited, and his pay was essentially reduced. We have highlighted in depositions that the policies and procedures define "demotion" as having your pay rate decreased-which did not happen to Selover. However, Bergosh's deposition highlights the

fact "we can call it whatever we want, but it is discipline... if it acts like a duck, talks like a duck, it's a duck." In addition, there are emails highlighting the fact that it looks like discipline, people were concerned about his due process rights, but no one did anything.  Although we do not think it is discipline, it appears that everyone was confused about it and the Councy needs to have policies that are more definitive for situations like this. We also have emails where employees are calling it discipline and the County attorney is analyzing it as discipline. Therefore, there is contradicting evidence amongst the County and this will be difficult to overcome. Furthermore, whether the actions takcn against Selover constituted discipline will be a question for the jury."

The County's case had more holes through it than a massive block of swiss cheese.....

Now, even though this document is 35 pages-- and the county's case had more holes in it than a huge block of swiss cheese--watch how just two pages will be spotlighted.  Presto, abracadabra.  I won't even need to point out which two pages--the readers of the document I have linked, and the subsequent news piece, will be able to piece that one together.

Meanwhile, the document --once read in it's entirety-- is an interesting look into a complex case with lots of levels, layers, competing narratives, and agendas.  It was a bad hand dealt to this insurance company's lawyer--no doubt about it--and this document details that fact in granular detail--I've highlighted those areas on the attached document.

"If it acts like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck---It's a duck!"

As it relates to my part of the overall situation:  I requested and received an opinion from the county attorney's office prior to being subpoenaed and deposed under oath--which testimony I gave is lamented in this document from the Insurance company's lawyer.  But I requested, received and have a written legal opinion on this I obtained prior to being deposed.  I testified truthfully.  And I refused to be coached and nudged on how my truthful testimony would be given nor would I be badgered by the lawyer for Dr. Edler on cross examination---I simply reiterated my answers the way I wanted to answer the questions--and this obviously was a source of contention for the insurance company's lawyer.

So be it.

I told the truth, and the truth prevailed, and a first responder that was treated horiffically by our county was victorious in this proceeding--and not because of my truthful testimony--but due to feckless and feeble handling of this issue by HR, administration, and public safety.  PERIOD.

I hope everyone has learned that this garbage doesn't have to happen if we follow our policies with fidelity. 

Hopfully we will going forward.

Otherwise we'll keep doing this over and over like groundhog day.